How Accurate is the Use of Contralateral Implant Size as a Template in Bilateral Hemiarthroplasty?

PURPOSE: Accurately predicting implant size for hemiarthroplasties offers an important contribution to theatre efficiency and patients' intraoperative care. However, pre-operative sizing using templating of implants in hip fracture patients requiring a hemiarthroplasty is often difficult due to non-standard radiographs, absence of a calibration marker, poor marker placement, variable patient position, and in many institutions a lack of templating facilities. In patients who have previously undergone a hemiarthroplasty on the contralateral side, surgeons can use the contralateral implant size for pre-operative planning purposes. However, the accuracy of doing this has not previously been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of using an in situ contralateral implant as a predictor of implant size on the contralateral side. METHODS: A retrospective review of our local neck of femur fracture (NOF) database was undertaken to identify patients who had bilateral hip hemiarthroplasty. Operative records were reviewed to establish the size of prostheses used at operation. Correlation, agreement, and reliability analysis were performed using the least squares, Bland-Altman plot, and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) methods, respectively. RESULTS: Operative records were identified for 45 patients who had bilateral hemiarthroplasties. There was a difference in implant size used in 58% of cases. Of these 77% required a larger implant on the right. Implant sizes were within 1 mm of the contralateral side in 78% and within 2 mm in 91% of patients. However, in 9% of patients, there was a discrepancy greater than 2 mm with some cases having up to 6 mm discrepancy. Correlation coefficient was 0.83 and the ICC 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this study indicated that using the size of a contralateral implant can be used as a reliable indicator of head size in cases of bilateral hemiarthroplasty. However, the surgeon should remain cautious as there is a one in ten chance of there being a 3 mm or more difference in implant size.

There is no 'weekend effect' in elective orthopaedic surgery.

Introduction The 'weekend effect' is said to occur when patient outcomes are adversely affected by the day of the week on which they present to hospital or have surgery. However, it is uncertain whether such a phenomenon exists for elective orthopaedic surgery. We investigated whether there is a 'weekend effect' in elective orthopaedic patients. Methods Retrospectively collected data were obtained from our institution's electronic patient records. We collected demographic and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems tenth revision coding data for all included patients. Multivariate analyses identified covariate-adjusted risk factors, associated with prolonged stays. Thirty-day mortality data were assessed according to the day on which surgery occurred. Results We analysed data for 892 patients over a one-year period. During the year, 457 patients had a total hip and 435 had a total knee replacement; 814 patients (91.3%) underwent surgery during the week, while 78 (8.7%) had surgery on a Saturday. There was no difference in average length of stay between the groups (5.0, 2.6 vs 5.0, 3.4, P = 0.95). Variables associated with prolonged hospitalisation included increasing age (covariate adjusted relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.03, P < 0.001) and an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 2, (relative risk 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.15-2.20, P = 0.005). There was one death in a patient who underwent surgery on a Monday. Conclusions There is no 'weekend effect' for elective orthopaedic surgery.

Atypical fractures: An issue of concern or a myth?

Atypical Femoral Fractures (AFF) represent fractures located between the lesser trochanter and the supracondylar flare of a femur. An increasing pool of evidence supports their association with the prolonged use of bisphosphonates, even though a direct correlation is yet to be proved. The purpose of this review is to encapsulate the current evidence associating bisphosphonate use and the development of AFFs, the clinical features related to their presentation, as well as to report the armamentarium of strategies available in the prevention and treatment of AFFs. Based on these evidence, we propose a management algorithm for AFFs, that can serve as a guide for patients presenting with this condition.

Quadriceps Tendon-Bone or Patellar Tendon-Bone Autografts When Reconstructing the Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to quantitatively assess the outcomes of studies, comparing the use of Bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) and the quadriceps tendon-bone (QTB) autografts when reconstructing the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched for relevant articles published between January 1980 and January 2015 for the purpose of identifying studies comparing BPTB and QTB autografts for ACL reconstruction. Included studies were assessed regarding their methodological quality before analysis. Outcomes analyzed were graft failure rates, objective and subjective stability assessments, as well as the presence and severity of donor site morbidity. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies contributed to the quantitative analysis of 806 patients with 452 patients included in the BPTB group and 354 patients in the QTB group. Graft failure rates were similar between the 2 groups [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61; confidence interval (CI) = 0.17-2.15; Z = 0.78, P = 0.44]. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups when testing anteroposterior stability using an arthrometer (standardized mean difference = 0.07; CI = -0.12-0.25; Z = 0.70, P = 0.48). At 1 year postoperatively, there was no difference in the percentage of patients with a positive pivot shift test between the 2 groups (OR = 1.0; CI = 0.85-1.18; Z = 0.01, P = 0.99). However, significantly less patients had graft site pain 1 year after surgery in the QTB group (OR = 0.10; CI = 0.02-0.43; Z = 3.12, P = 0.002). Similarly, fewer patients reported moderate to severe pain while kneeling, in the QTB group (OR = 0.16; CI = 0.07-0.37; Z = 4.26, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates comparable survival rates and joint stability when BPTB and QTB grafts are used. However, fewer adverse donor site symptoms are evident with QTB grafts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Polyethylene in knee arthroplasty: A review.

Polyethylene (PE) has been used extensively in knee arthroplasty since the mid 20th century. Progress in material manufacturing and processing has led to newer polyethylenes over last few decades with different material properties. It has been established that PE wear in knee arthroplasty causes particle induced osteolysis which is the main reason for late failure and requires revision surgery. Although there are various causes of wear, the properties of PE have long been a matter of investigation as a contributory factor. The advent of newer highly cross linked PE has been shown to improve wear rates in hip arthroplasty but the benefits have not been shown to be of the same degree in knee arthroplasty. The laboratory and clinical studies so far are limited and slightly conflicting in their conclusions. The risks of using highly cross linked PE in knee arthroplasty include tibial post fracture, disruption of locking mechanism, liner fracture which can lead to increased wear and osteolysis. The current evidence suggests that highly cross linked polyethylenes should be used with caution and only considered in younger active patients. The results of a recently completed randomized trial to compare the conventional with high molecular weight PE in knee arthroplasty are awaited.