Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Hip instability following total hip arthroplasty in treatment of intracapsular neck of femur fractures is reported at 8–11%. Utilising the principle of a small articulation to minimize the problems of wear coupled with a large articulation, dual-mobility total hip arthroplasty prostheses stabilise the hip further than conventional fixed-bearing designs. The aim of this study is to compare the rate of dislocation and complication between standard fixed-bearing and dual-mobility prostheses for the treatment of intracapsular neck of femur fractures.
Methods
A four-year retrospective review in a large district general hospital was completed. All cases of intracapsular neck of femur fractures treated with total hip arthroplasty were identified through the theatre logbooks. Patient's operative and clinical notes were retrospectively reviewed to collect data.
Results
A total of 91 patients underwent total hip arthroplasty for intracapsular neck of femur fracture in the four-year period. 61.5% were dual-mobility design versus 28.5% had fixed-bearing implants. There were no statistical differences between patient group characteristics. Choice of implant was dependent on surgeon preference. There was a 0.0% dislocation rate in the dual-mobility group versus 8.6% in the fixed-bearing prosthesis group. All dislocations occurred in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty with 36.0mm fixed-bearing prosthesis via posterior surgical approach. There was no statistical difference in mortality between both groups.
Conclusion
There was an increasing trend of towards the use of dual-mobility prosthesis for fractured neck of femur within this department with excellent outcomes. Dual-mobility designs provide reduced dislocation rates in total hip arthroplasty in intracapsular neck of femur fractures compared to standard fixed-bearing designs at this institution. The authors recommend that all orthopaedic staff consider the use of dual-mobility prostheses in suitable patients and ensure trainees are suitably trained in use of dual-mobility designs.
Declaration of Interest
(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
