Thompson hemiarthroplasty versus modular unipolar implants for patients requiring hemiarthroplasty of the hip: A systematic review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess all evidence comparing the Thompson monoblock hemiarthroplasty with modular unipolar implants for patients requiring hemiarthroplasty of the hip with respect to mortality and complications. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify all relevant literature. The population consisted of patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty of the hip for fracture. The intervention was hemiarthroplasty of the hip with a comparison between Thompson and modular unipolar prostheses.Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PROSPERO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.The study designs included were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), well designed case control studies and retrospective or prospective cohort studies. Studies available in any language, published at any time until September 2015 were considered. Studies were included if they contained mortality or complications. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 4757 items for examination. Four papers were included in the final review. The pooled odds ratio for mortality was 1.3 (95% confidence Interval 0.78 to 2.46) favouring modular designs. The pooled odds ratio for post-operative complications was 1.1 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.55) favouring modular designs. Outcomes were reported at 12 or six months. These papers all contained potential sources of bias and significant clinical heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The current evidence comparing monoblock versus modular implants in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty is weak. Confidence intervals around the pooled odds ratios are broad and incorporate a value of one. Direct comparison of outcomes from these papers is fraught with difficulty and, as such, may well be misleading. A well designed randomised controlled trial would be helpful to inform evidence-based implant selection.Cite this article: A. L. Sims, A. J. Farrier, M. R. Reed, T. A. Sheldon. Thompson hemiarthroplasty versus modular unipolar implants for patients requiring hemiarthroplasty of the hip: A systematic review of the evidence. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:-513. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.68.BJR-2016-0256.R1.

New anti-resorptives and antibody mediated anti-resorptive therapy.

UNLABELLED: The ageing population and an increase in both the incidence and prevalence of cancer pose a healthcare challenge, some of which is borne by the orthopaedic community in the form of osteoporotic fractures and metastatic bone disease. In recent years there has been an increasing understanding of the pathways involved in bone metabolism relevant to osteoporosis and metastases in bone. Newer therapies may aid the management of these problems. One group of drugs, the antibody mediated anti-resorptive therapies (AMARTs) use antibodies to block bone resorption pathways. This review seeks to present a synopsis of the guidelines, pharmacology and potential pathophysiology of AMARTs and other new anti-resorptive drugs. We evaluate the literature relating to AMARTs and new anti-resorptives with special attention on those approved for use in clinical practice. Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody against Receptor Activator for Nuclear Factor Kappa-B Ligand. It is the first AMART approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the US Food and Drug Administration. Other novel anti-resorptives awaiting approval for clinical use include Odanacatib. Denosumab is indicated for the treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of the complications of bone metastases. Recent evidence suggests, however, that denosumab may have an adverse event profile similar to bisphosphonates, including atypical femoral fractures. It is, therefore, essential that orthopaedic surgeons are conversant with these medications and their safe usage. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Denosumab has important orthopaedic indications and has been shown to significantly reduce patient morbidity in osteoporosis and metastatic bone disease.

Is there an association between body temperature and serum lactate levels in hip fracture patients?

Introduction Hyperlactataemia is associated with adverse outcomes in trauma cases. It is thought to be the result of anaerobic respiration during hypoperfusion. This produces much less energy than complete aerobic glycolysis. Low body temperature in the injured patient carries an equally poor prognosis. Significant amounts of energy are expended in maintaining euthermia. Consequently, there may be a link between lactate levels and dysthermia. Hyperlactataemia may be indicative of inefficient energy production and therefore insufficient energy to maintain euthermia. Alternatively, significant amounts of available oxygen may be sequestered in thermoregulation, resulting in anaerobic respiration and lactate production. Our study investigated whether there is an association between lactate levels and admission body temperature in hip fracture patients. Furthermore, it looked at whether there is a difference in the mean lactate levels between hip fracture patients with low (<36.5°C), normal (36.5-37.5°C) and high (>37.5°C) body temperature on admission, and for patients who have low body temperature, whether there is a progressive rise in serum lactate levels as body temperature falls. Methods The admission temperature and serum lactate of 1,162 patients presenting with hip fracture were recorded. Patients were divided into the euthermic (body temperature 36.5-37.5°C), the pyrexial (>37.5°C) and those with low body temperature (<36.5°C). Admission lactate and body temperature were compared. Results There was a significant difference in age between the three body temperature groups (p=0.007). The pyrexial cohort was younger than the low body temperature group (mean: 78 vs 82 years). Those with low body temperature had a higher mean lactate level than the euthermic (2.2mmol/l vs 2.0mmol/l, p=0.03). However, there was no progressive rise in serum lactate level as admission temperature fell. Conclusions The findings suggest that in hip fracture patients, the body attempts initially to maintain euthermia, incurring an oxygen debt. This would explain the difference in lactate level between the low body temperature and euthermic cohorts. The fact that there is no correlation with the degree of temperature depression and lactate levels indicates that the body does not fuel thermohomeostasis indefinitely with oxygen. Instead, in part, it abandons thermoregulatory mechanisms. Consequently, in this population, active rewarming may be indicated rather than depending on patients' own thermogenic ability.

Common contra-indications and interactions of drugs in orthopaedic practice.

Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication. In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted the importance of informing and educating clinicians. Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical care.