Current concepts in the treatment of adolescent femoroacetabular impingement.

There is growing evidence that symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement leads to intra-articular damage and the development of early-onset osteoarthritis. Symptoms of femoroacetabular impingement often do not manifest until adulthood, but have been increasingly recognised in the paediatric and adolescent population. The surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement is aimed at restoring a more normal femoral head-neck offset in order to increase the clearance and prevent femoral abutment against the acetabular edge. Current methods include open and arthroscopic techniques. The latter has been combined with an open approach to gain access to the head-neck junction for osteochondroplasty. Proximal femoral and/or periacetabular osteotomies are used to treat femoroacetabular impingement associated with deformity secondary to childhood hip conditions, such as slipped capital femoral epiphysis and Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease. Some adolescents have severe degenerative joint disease at the time of presentation and may require arthroplasty or arthrodesis. The aim of this review is to identify the major trends and advancements in the management of femoroacetabular impingement in adolescents, including the outcome of studies of the surgical treatment modalities used.

Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fractures: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials in order to identify the best available evidence to compare the outcome between cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty for treatment of intracapsular hip fractures. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE and the National Research Register (UK) to retrieve all of the published randomised controlled trials designed to address these issues, in order to perform a meta-analysis. Eight studies involving 1169 patients were determined to be appropriate for meta-analysis. The following statistically significant differences were found between the cemented and uncemented prostheses: (1) longer operative time for cemented prosthesis; (2) lower reduction in mobility score for those treated with cemented prosthesis; (3) fewer patients with residual pain in the hip and lower pain score (signifying less pain) for those treated with a cemented prosthesis. Our meta-analysis has shown that there is good evidence that the use of cement during hemiarthroplasty will reduce the amount of residual hip pain and also allow better restoration of function. There is no evidence of significant adverse effects of cement on mortality or other complications encountered. These observations apply to older designs, and there is a need for randomised trials comparing hydroxyapatite-coated modern stems with cemented prostheses.

Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Numerous types of arthroplasties may be used in the surgical treatment of a hip fracture (proximal femoral fracture). The main differences between the implants are in the design of the stems, whether the stem is cemented or uncemented, whether a second articulating joint is included within the prosthesis (bipolar prosthesis), or whether a partial (hemiarthroplasty) or total whole hip replacement is used. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomised controlled trials comparing different arthroplasties for the treatment of hip fractures in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (September 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registers (all to September 2009), and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different arthroplasties and their insertion with or without cement, for the treatment of hip fractures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, by use of a 10-item checklist, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three trials involving 2861 older and mainly female patients with proximal femoral fractures are included. Cemented prostheses, when compared with uncemented prostheses (6 trials, 899 participants) were associated with a less pain at a year or later and improved mobility. No significant difference in surgical complications was found. One trial of 220 participants compared a hydroxyapatite coated hemiarthroplasty with a cemented prosthesis and reported no notable differences between the two prosthesis. Comparison of unipolar hemiarthroplasty with bipolar hemiarthroplasty (7 trials, 857 participants, 863 fractures) showed no significant differences between the two types of implant. Seven trials involving 734 participants compared hemiarthroplasty with a total hip replacement (THR). Most studies involved cemented implants. Dislocation of the prosthesis was more common with the THR but there was a general trend within these studies to better functional outcome scores for those treated with the THR. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence that cementing the prostheses in place will reduce post-operative pain and lead to better mobility. From the trials to date there is no evidence of any difference in outcome between bipolar and unipolar prosthesis. There is some evidence that a total hip replacement leads to better functional outcome than a hemiarthroplasty. Further well-conducted randomised trials are required.