Periprosthetic Fractures around Total Hip Replacement-Is There a Rush to Fix?

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures now account for 14.1% of all hip revisions. Surgery is often highly specialised and can involve the revision of implants, fixation of fractures, or a combination of both. Delays to surgery are frequent as specialist equipment and surgeons are often required. UK guidelines are currently moving in favour of early surgery in a similar way to the neck of femur fractures, despite a lack of evidential consensus. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent surgery for periprosthetic fractures around a total hip replacement (THR) at a single unit between 2012 and 2019 was performed. Risk factors for complications, length of stay (LOS), and time to surgery data were collected and analysed using regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients met the inclusion criteria: 63 (72%) were treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and 25 (28%) underwent revision THR. Baseline characteristics were similar in both the ORIF and revision groups. Revision surgery was more likely to be delayed than ORIF owing to the need for specialist equipment and personnel (median 143 h vs. 120 h, p = 0.04). Median LOS was 17 days if operated within 72 h and 27 days if delayed beyond this (p < 0.0001), but there was no increase in 90-day mortality (p = 0.66), HDU admission (p = 0.33), or perioperative complications (p = 0.27) with delay beyond 72 h. CONCLUSION: Periprosthetic fractures are complex and require a highly specialised approach. Delaying surgery does not result in increased mortality or complications but does increase length of stay. Further multicentre research into this area is required.

A technique for extracting a buried Kuntscher nail from the femur during total hip arthroplasty.

We describe a novel technique that allows safe extraction of a buried Kuntscher nail during total hip arthroplasty in a patient with ipsilateral, symptomatic post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the hip. This method allows the surgeon to visualise the antegrade entry point of the nail allowing safe extraction of the device without compromising the result of the hip arthroplasty.

Preoperative footbaths reduce bacterial colonization of the foot.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated higher infection rates following elective procedures on the foot and ankle compared with procedures involving other areas of the body. Previous studies also have documented the difficulty of eliminating bacteria from the forefoot prior to surgery. The purpose of the present study was to ascertain if preoperative chlorhexidine bathing decreased the number of bacteria on the forefoot. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October 2005 to October 2006, a prospective study was undertaken to evaluate 44 consecutive patients undergoing planned, elective surgery of the foot and ankle. (mean age, 43.9 years; range, 17 to 85 years; 25 female, 19 male). Twenty-two patients were assigned to each group. They were randomly assigned to have preoperative footbath with chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibitane) (Group 1) 20 minutes before surgery or placebo (Group 2). Culture swabs were taken from all web spaces, nail folds, toe surfaces and proposed surgical incision sites before the preoperative bath, during the procedure and immediately after surgery. RESULTS: In Group 1, bacteria grew on the intraoperative culture in 60% and 0% of immediate postoperative cultures. In Group 2, 96% of intraoperative cultures and 16% of postoperative cultures. The difference in the intraoperative bacterial count was statistically significant (p = 0.002). The difference in postoperative bacterial counts was marginally significant (p = 0.055). No complications were recorded in either group. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that chlorhexidine provides better reduction in skin flora than placebo. Based of these data, we recommend the use of a chlorhexidine footbath in addition to standard surgical preparatory agent before foot and ankle surgery.

Comparison of Herbert and Acutrak screws in the treatment of scaphoid non-union and delayed union.

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who had undergone surgery for delayed union or non-union of a scaphoid fracture. This was conducted to investigate if there was a difference in outcome between patients treated with the Acutrak screw or the Herbert screw. Twenty two cases were treated with a Herbert screw and 23 with an Acutrak screw. The patient demographics, aetiology of injury and fracture types were similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference in union rate or time to union for fractures treated with the Herbert screw or the Acutrak screw. There appears to be no difference in outcome for cases of scaphoid fracture delayed union and non-union treated with either the Herbert screw or the Acutrak screw.