Marappa-Ganeshan R, Sim F, Sidhom S, Chakrabarty G, Pandit HG, van Duren BH. How Accurate is the Use of Contralateral Implant Size as a Template in Bilateral Hemiarthroplasty?
Indian J Orthop 2020;
54:863-867. [PMID:
33123318 PMCID:
PMC7573054 DOI:
10.1007/s43465-020-00203-6]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse