Abstract
PurposeAccurately 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOperative 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
Highlights
Hip fractures are a common injury affecting the elderly population
60% of these fractures are intracapsular for which hip hemiarthroplasty is a key intervention [1, 2]
Operative records were identified for 45 patients who had undergone bilateral hip hemiarthroplasty over the study period
Summary
Hip fractures are a common injury affecting the elderly population. The national hip fracture database recorded 66,313 people who presented with hip fractures in 2018 to 175 trauma units in England, Wales, and Ireland [1]. Hip fractures are associated with a 6.1% mortality at 30 days post-injury [1]. Prompt treatment and restoration of mobility have been shown to improve outcomes. 60% of these fractures are intracapsular for which hip hemiarthroplasty is a key intervention [1, 2]. Optimising hip hemiarthroplasty surgery is important in achieving good clinical outcomes. The aim of the surgery is to relieve pain, restore joint function and avoid complications [3].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
