Dual Mobility hip replacement in hip fractures offer functional equivalence and a stability advantage - A case-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a common and serious injury in the elderly. Hip arthroplasty is the most frequently performed procedure for patients with an  intracapsular hip fracture. The majority of national guidelines recommend total hip arthroplasty (THA) for more active patients. Literature indicates significant stability advantages for dual mobility (DM) acetabular components in non-emergent scenarios. Evidence supporting the use of DM in hip fracture patients is limited. AIM: We set out to ascertain if DM implants offer stability and/or functional advantages over standard THA in patients with hip fracture. METHODS: We utilised our local National Hip Fracture Database to identify all patients undergoing either a standard or DM THA for hip fracture (n=477) We matched cohorts based on age, AMTS, mobility status pre-operatively, gender, ASA and source of admission. Our primary outcome of interest was functional status using the oxford hip score (OHS). Secondary outcome measures included  dislocation, fracture and deep infection requiring further surgery. RESULTS: 62 patient pairs were available for this study. Mean OHS for DM THA was 41.5 and for standard THA this was 42.7 (p=0.58). There were 4 dislocations in the standard THA group and 0 with DM THA. No difference was seen with infection or peri-prosthetic fracture. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates functional equivalence between DM and standard THA. In addition it shows a trend towards less dislocation with DM THA. Cost savings from less instability may outweigh initial prosthesis costs. This study suggests a suitably powered RCT using instability as the primary outcome measure is indicated.

The National Hip Fracture Database is only as good as the data we feed it - significant inaccuracy demonstrated and how to improve it.

INTRODUCTION: The National Hip Fracture Database of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NHFD) is the largest such database in the world. Data errors in within the NHFD lead to spurious evidence which ultimately informs Orthopaedic, Anaesthetic and Orthogeriatric clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multi-centre quality improvement study investigated, and sought to improve data inaccuracy within the NHFD. Hip arthroplasty episodes recorded between 2011-2020 were analysed for errors in operation, implant polarity and cementation. RESULTS: Inaccuracies were observed in 20.5% of 3972 data entries. Following the introduction of a hip fracture clinical data administrator in each centre, inaccuracies reduced four-fold (5.2% of 559 data entries). CONCLUSION: We advise caution when utilising NHFD data for research and audit purposes. In order to build a robust, accurate database for future research, we recommend the incorporation of specialist data administrators into the hip fracture multidisciplinary team.