Cemented compared to uncemented femoral stems in total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: study protocol for a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (CHANCE-trial)

Girdlestone resection arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures has poorer outcomes than hemiarthroplasty in frail patients with increased risk for arthroplasty-related complications: a retrospective case study of 21 patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Hemiarthroplasty (HA) is the usual treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) in elderly patients. Patients may be unsuitable for HA due to secondary conditions such as systemic infections or severe neurological conditions, which is why Girdlestone resection arthroplasty (GRA) may be an option. We aimed to determine (1) patient survival in matched patient groups treated with either GRA or HA and (2) functional outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

21 patients treated with GRA for FNF in a German university hospital were retrospectively reviewed (2015-2019). After matching for age and comorbidities, a control group of 42 HA patients was established. Patient survival was determined by a Kaplan-Meier analysis. The mean follow-up (FU) was 1.5 (0-4.4) years. Function at FU was documented using the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) mobility score.

RESULTS

The 1-month-mortality was 19% in the GRA group and 12% in the HA group; the 1-year mortality was 71% and 49%, respectively (P = 0.01). The mHHS at FU was lower in the GRA group than in the HA group (22 [range 0-50] vs. 46 [11-80]). 82% of patients in the GRA group were bedridden post-surgery as opposed to 19% in the HA group.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HA after FNF had higher survival and better functional outcomes when compared with GRA in matched patient groups. Considering this, GRA for FNF should be selected restrictively.

Mortality associated with cemented and uncemented fixation of hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement in the surgical management of intracapsular hip fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of bone cement for implant fixation in the surgical management of intracapsular hip fractures (IHFs) remains controversial. Although UK national guidance supports cementation, many surgeons remain cautious of its use. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate evidence surrounding post-operative mortality associated with cemented and uncemented total hip replacement and hemiarthroplasty implants.

METHODS

We conducted a search of MEDLINE and Embase databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from commencement until 17 June 2020. Articles reporting mortality or patient survival as an outcome following total hip replacement (THR) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) to manage IHFs were included. Articles not comparing cemented and uncemented fixation were excluded. A meta-analysis on mortality stratified by post-operative follow-up period was conducted using a fixed-effects model. The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Our initial search found 77 references, 13 of which were eligible for full-text review. Mortality data from 12 studies were pooled and included in the meta-analysis. 1 599 operations were reported: 882 involved cemented fixation; 717, uncemented. Mortality outcome reporting ranged from less than 7 days to 5 years post-operation. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in mortality at any follow-up period. Study quality assessment revealed low certainty in mortality estimates.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence indicates that cementation has no effect on mortality at any reported follow-up time period. Even with the use of evidence synthesis, the sample size remains relatively low for mortality outcomes and insufficiently powered to reliably determine differences between groups.

Surgical interventions for treating intracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a considerable challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising rapidly. The majority of intracapsular hip fractures are treated surgically.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of all surgical treatments used in the management of intracapsular hip fractures in older adults, using a network meta-analysis of randomised trials, and to generate a hierarchy of interventions according to their outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and five other databases in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted backward-citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different treatments for fragility intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included total hip arthroplasties (THAs), hemiarthroplasties (HAs), internal fixation, and non-operative treatments. We excluded studies of people with hip fracture with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or resulting from high-energy trauma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for three outcomes at different time points: mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - both reported within 4 months, at 12 months, and after 24 months of surgery, and unplanned return to theatre (at end of study follow-up). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with Stata software, using frequentist methods, and calculated the differences between treatments using risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed direct comparisons using the same codes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 119 studies (102 RCTS, 17 quasi-RCTs) with 17,653 participants with 17,669 intracapsular fractures in the review; 83% of fractures were displaced. The mean participant age ranged from 60 to 87 years and 73% were women.  After discussion with clinical experts, we selected 12 nodes that represented the best balance between clinical plausibility and efficiency of the networks: cemented modern unipolar HA, dynamic fixed angle plate, uncemented first-generation bipolar HA, uncemented modern bipolar HA, cemented modern bipolar HA, uncemented first-generation unipolar HA, uncemented modern unipolar HA, THA with single articulation, dual-mobility THA, pins, screws, and non-operative treatment. Seventy-five studies (with 11,855 participants) with data for at least two of these treatments contributed to the NMA. We selected cemented modern unipolar HA as a reference treatment against which other treatments were compared. This was a common treatment in the networks, providing a clinically appropriate comparison. In order to provide a concise summary of the results, we report only network estimates when there was evidence of difference between treatments. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious and very serious risks of bias and when estimates included possible transitivity, particularly for internal fixation which included more undisplaced fractures. We also downgraded for incoherence, or inconsistency in indirect estimates, although this affected few estimates. Most estimates included the possibility of benefits and harms, and we downgraded the evidence for these treatments for imprecision.  We found that cemented modern unipolar HA, dynamic fixed angle plate and pins seemed to have the greatest likelihood of reducing mortality at 12 months. Overall, 23.5% of participants who received the reference treatment died within 12 months of surgery. Uncemented modern bipolar HA had higher mortality than the reference treatment (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.85; derived only from indirect evidence; low-certainty evidence), and THA with single articulation also had higher mortality (network estimate RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.32; derived from direct evidence from 2 studies with 225 participants, and indirect evidence; very low-certainty evidence). In the remaining treatments, the certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low, and we noted no evidence of any differences in mortality at 12 months.  We found that THA (single articulation), cemented modern bipolar HA and uncemented modern bipolar HA seemed to have the greatest likelihood of improving HRQoL at 12 months. This network was comparatively sparse compared to other outcomes and the certainty of the evidence of differences between treatments was very low. We noted no evidence of any differences in HRQoL at 12 months, although estimates were imprecise. We found that arthroplasty treatments seemed to have a greater likelihood of reducing unplanned return to theatre than internal fixation and non-operative treatment. We estimated that 4.3% of participants who received the reference treatment returned to theatre during the study follow-up. Compared to this treatment, we found low-certainty evidence that more participants returned to theatre if they were treated with a dynamic fixed angle plate (network estimate RR 4.63, 95% CI 2.94 to 7.30; from direct evidence from 1 study with 190 participants, and indirect evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence that more participants returned to theatre when treated with pins (RR 4.16, 95% CI 2.53 to 6.84; only from indirect evidence), screws (network estimate RR 5.04, 95% CI 3.25 to 7.82; from direct evidence from 2 studies with 278 participants, and indirect evidence), and non-operative treatment (RR 5.41, 95% CI 1.80 to 16.26; only from indirect evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of a tendency for an increased risk of unplanned return to theatre for all of the arthroplasty treatments, and in particular for THA, compared with cemented modern unipolar HA, with little evidence to suggest the size of this difference varied strongly between the arthroplasty treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was considerable variability in the ranking of each treatment such that there was no one outstanding, or subset of outstanding, superior treatments. However, cemented modern arthroplasties tended to more often yield better outcomes than alternative treatments and may be a more successful approach than internal fixation. There is no evidence of a difference between THA (single articulation) and cemented modern unipolar HA in the outcomes measured in this review. THA may be an appropriate treatment for a subset of people with intracapsular fracture but we have not explored this further.

Arthroplasties for hip fracture in adults

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a huge challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising rapidly. The majority of hip fractures are treated surgically. This review evaluates evidence for types of arthroplasty: hemiarthroplasties (HAs), which replace part of the hip joint; and total hip arthroplasties (THAs), which replace all of it.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of different designs, articulations, and fixation techniques of arthroplasties for treating hip fractures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and one trials register in July 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different arthroplasties for treating fragility intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included THAs and HAs inserted with or without cement, and comparisons between different articulations, sizes, and types of prostheses. We excluded studies of people with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis and with hip fractures resulting from high-energy trauma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for seven outcomes: activities of daily living, functional status, health-related quality of life, mobility (all early: within four months of surgery), early mortality and at 12 months after surgery, delirium, and unplanned return to theatre at the end of follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 58 studies (50 RCTs, 8 quasi-RCTs) with 10,654 participants with 10,662 fractures. All studies reported intracapsular fractures, except one study of extracapsular fractures. The mean age of participants in the studies ranged from 63 years to 87 years, and 71% were women. We report here the findings of three comparisons that represent the most substantial body of evidence in the review. Other comparisons were also reported, but with many fewer participants. All studies had unclear risks of bias in at least one domain and were at high risk of detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of many outcomes for imprecision, and for risks of bias where sensitivity analysis indicated that bias sometimes influenced the size or direction of the effect estimate. HA: cemented versus uncemented (17 studies, 3644 participants) There was moderate-certainty evidence of a benefit with cemented HA consistent with clinically small to large differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; 3 studies, 1122 participants), and reduction in the risk of mortality at 12 months (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96; 15 studies, 3727 participants). We found moderate-certainty evidence of little or no difference in performance of activities of daily living (ADL) (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.16; 4 studies, 1275 participants), and independent mobility (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14; 3 studies, 980 participants). We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in delirium (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.06; 2 studies, 800 participants), early mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13; 12 studies, 3136 participants) or unplanned return to theatre (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 6 studies, 2336 participants). For functional status, there was very low-certainty evidence showing no clinically important differences. The risks of most adverse events were similar. However, cemented HAs led to less periprosthetic fractures intraoperatively (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.46; 7 studies, 1669 participants) and postoperatively (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 studies, 2819 participants), but had a higher risk of pulmonary embolus (RR 3.56, 95% CI 1.26 to 10.11, 6 studies, 2499 participants). Bipolar HA versus unipolar HA (13 studies, 1499 participants) We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between bipolar and unipolar HAs in early mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.64; 4 studies, 573 participants) and 12-month mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.53; 8 studies, 839 participants). We are unsure of the effect for delirium, HRQoL, and unplanned return to theatre, which all indicated little or no difference between articulation, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. No studies reported on early ADL, functional status and mobility. The overall risk of adverse events was similar. The absolute risk of dislocation was low (approximately 1.6%) and there was no evidence of any difference between treatments. THA versus HA (17 studies, 3232 participants) The difference in the risk of mortality at 12 months was consistent with clinically relevant benefits and harms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.22; 11 studies, 2667 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in unplanned return to theatre, but this effect estimate includes clinically relevant benefits of THA (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.07, favours THA; 10 studies, 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between THA and HA in delirium (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; 2 studies, 357 participants), and mobility (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.16, favours THA; 1 study, 83 participants). We are unsure of the effect for early functional status, ADL, HRQoL, and mortality, which indicated little or no difference between interventions, because the certainty of the evidence was very low.  The overall risks of adverse events were similar. There was an increased risk of dislocation with THA (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.27; 12 studies, 2719 participants) and no evidence of a difference in deep infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people undergoing HA for intracapsular hip fracture, it is likely that a cemented prosthesis will yield an improved global outcome, particularly in terms of HRQoL and mortality. There is no evidence to suggest a bipolar HA is superior to a unipolar prosthesis. Any benefit of THA compared with hemiarthroplasty is likely to be small and not clinically appreciable. We encourage researchers to focus on alternative implants in current clinical practice, such as dual-mobility bearings, for which there is limited available evidence.

Uncemented versus cemented total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients with osteoporosis: A retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed assess the clinical outcomes of elderly patients with osteoporotic femoral neck fractures (FNFs) (AO/OTA: 31B/C) treated by initial uncemented total hip arthroplasty (UTA) or cemented total hip arthroplasty (CTA).

METHODS

This study involved consecutive elderly patients with osteoporotic FNFs (AO/OTA: 31B/C) treated by initial UTA or CTA in our medical centre from 2010 to 2015. The primary outcomes were the Harris hip score (HHS) and the rates of revision, loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation.

RESULTS

In total, 224 patients were included in the final analysis (UTA, n = 114; CTA, n = 110). The mean follow-up duration was 60 months (range, 32-68 months). The mean HHS was 75.34 ± 18.82 for UTA and 80.12 ± 17.83 for CTA. Significant dissimilarities were detected in the rates of revision, loosening, and periprosthetic fracture between UTA and CTA (14.0% vs. 5.5%, 20.2% vs. 10.0%, and 12.3% vs. 4.5%, respectively). A significant difference was also detected in the probability of revision between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Elderly patients with osteoporotic FNFs (AO/OTA: 31B/C) treated with CTA show greater improvements in functional outcomes and key orthopaedic complications than those treated with UTA.

The influence of depression on patient-reported outcomes for hip-fracture patients 1 year after surgery: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in elderly hip-fracture patients and together with cognitive impairment is associated with increased risk of mortality.

AIM

We aimed to examine the influence depression has on patient-reported outcome up to 1 year after acute hip fracture.

METHODS

162 hip-fracture patients participated in the prospective observational cohort study and were followed up at baseline, and 3 and 12 months using patient-reported outcome scores. Patients with cognitive impairment were excluded. Depression was defined as a score ≥ 8 on the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS D), having a diagnosis of depression or being treated with anti-depressant medication. Hip function was assessed using Harris Hip Score (HHS), EQ-5D was used to assess health status and Quality of life, and the Pain Numerical Rating Scale (PRNS) was used to assess pain levels. A linear regression model adjusted for group, age, sex, and ASA class was used to identify risk factors for functional outcome 12 months after fracture.

RESULTS

35 patients were included in the depression group versus 127 in the control group. No statistical differences were found in the demographic data (age, sex, ASA class, fracture type, operation method, living situation, activities of daily living ADL and clinical pathway) between the groups. In the regression model, we found no correlation between depression and the patient-reported outcome.

CONCLUSION

In young elderly hip fracture patients without cognitive dysfunction, depression may not be of major importance for the rehabilitation of hip function in the short term.

A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Preference-Based Instruments with the Older Population

Older people (aged 65 years and over) are the fastest growing age cohort in the majority of developed countries, and the proportion of individuals defined as the oldest old (aged 80 years and over) living with physical frailty and cognitive impairment is rising. These population changes put increasing pressure on health and aged care services, thus it is important to assess the cost effectiveness of interventions targeted for older people across health and aged care sectors to identify interventions with the strongest capacity to enhance older peoples' quality of life and provide value for money. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a form of economic evaluation that typically uses preference-based instruments to measure and value health-related quality of life for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS) to enable comparisons of the cost effectiveness of different interventions. A variety of generic preference-based instruments have been used to measure older people's quality of life, including the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT); Health Utility Index Mark 2 (HUI2); Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3); Short-Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D); Assessment of Quality of Life-6 dimensions (AQoL-6D); Assessment of Quality of Life-8 dimensions (AQoL-8D); Quality of Wellbeing Scale-Self-Administered (QWB-SA); 15 Dimensions (15D); EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D); and an older person specific preference-based instrument-the Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure for older people (ICECAP-O). This article reviews the development and application of these instruments within the older population and discusses the issues surrounding their use with this population. Areas for further research relating to the development and application of generic preference-based instruments with populations of older people are also highlighted.

Long-term follow-up outcomes for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with uncemented versus cemented femoral components: a retrospective observational study with a 5-year minimum follow-up

BACKGROUND

This retrospective analysis compared the long-term outcomes for patients with a femoral neck fracture (AO/OTA type 31B) treated with a primary unilateral total hip arthroplasty with uncemented or cemented femoral components (UTHA or CTHA, respectively).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the South China Hip Arthroplasty Database. We identified 422 patients with femoral neck fracture (AO/OTA type 31B) who were previously treated with primary unilateral UTHA or CTHA between 2007 and 2015, with follow-up until 2019. Follow-up occurred 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively and yearly thereafter. The primary outcome was the Harris hip score (HHS). The secondary outcome was the orthopaedic complication rate.

RESULTS

In total, 324 patients (UTHA n = 160, mean age 68.61 ± 7.49 years; CTHA n = 164, mean age 68.75 ± 7.04 years) were evaluated for study eligibility. The median follow-up was 73.3 months (range, 11.6-89.2 months). At the final follow-up, HHS was 74.09 ± 6.23 vs 79.01 ± 10.21 (UTHA vs CTHA, p = 0.012). Significant differences were detected in the incidence of prosthetic revision, loosening, and periprosthetic fracture between the UTHA and CTHA groups (7.5% for UTHA vs 1.8% for CTHA, p = 0.015; 17.5% for UTHA vs 8.5% for CTHA, p = 0.016; 11.9% for UTHA vs 4.9% for CTHA, p = 0.021, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In this setting, CTHA demonstrated superiority to UTHA by improving functional outcomes and decreasing complication rates.

More complications with uncemented than cemented femoral stems in total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly

Background and purpose - Total hip replacement (THR) is the preferred method for the active and lucid elderly patient with a displaced femoral neck fracture (FNF). Controversy still exists regarding the use of cemented or uncemented stems in these patients. We compared the effectiveness and safety between a modern cemented, and a modern uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem in patients 65-79 years of age who were treated with THR for displaced FNF. Patients and methods - In a single-center, single-blinded randomized controlled trial, we included 69 patients, mean age 75 (65-79) and with a displaced FNF (Garden III-IV). 35 patients were randomized to a cemented THR and 34 to a reverse-hybrid THR with an uncemented stem. Primary endpoints were: prevalence of all hip-related complications and health-related quality of life, evaluated with EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) index up to 2 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes included: overall mortality, general medical complications, and hip function. The patients were followed up at 3, 12, and 24 months. Results - According to the calculation of sample size, 140 patients would be required for the primary endpoints, but the study was stopped when only half of the sample size was included (n = 69). An interim analysis at that time showed that the total number of early hip-related complications was substantially higher in the uncemented group, 9 (among them, 3 dislocations and 4 periprosthetic fractures) as compared to 1 in the cemented group. The mortality and functional outcome scores were similar in the 2 groups. Interpretation - We do not recommend uncemented femoral stems for the treatment of elderly patients with displaced FNFs.