header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Research

USE OF CEMENTED HEMIARTHROPLASTY IN FEMORAL NECK FRACTURE

West of Scotland Research Society (WOSORS) - Glasgow Meeting of Orthopaedic Research (GLAMOR)



Abstract

Over 70,000 hip fractures occur annually in the UK. Both SIGN (111) and NICE (124) give guidance on optimal management of these patients. Both suggest cemented hemiarthroplasty should be used in those without contra-indications, as cemented implants are associated with less thigh pain, subsidence and a better functional outcome. Cardiorespiratory compromise secondary to bone cement implantation syndrome (BCIS) is however a concern in those with pre-existing cardiorespiratory disease (NYHA grade 3–4, pulmonary hypertension) or pathological fracture [3].

The aim of our study was to audit the practice of a University of Glasgow hospital with regard to cemented hemiarthroplasty.

We retrospectively reviewed data on all patients treated with hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture at the Southern General Hospital between 01/01/12-02/04/12. Patient demographics, pre-operative plan, procedure performed, ASA grade and pre-morbid mobility were recorded.

Results

Twenty-three hemiarthroplasties were performed. The median age was 82 (70–101). No patient aged over 90 underwent cemented hemiarthroplasty. Cemented implants (JRI, Furlong) were used in 26% (n=6) while 74% (n=17) underwent uncemented (Stryker, Austin-Moore) hemiarthroplasty. ASA grade was recorded in eight (35%). There were four ASA-2 patients (mild systemic disease not limiting activity) of which 75% underwent uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Pre-morbid mobility was recorded in eight (35%). All three independently mobile patients underwent uncemented hemiarthroplasty. Six (26%) had a documented pre-operative plan with regards to cement use.

This study highlights the disparity between current recommendations and our Centres’ practice. Most notable were: poor recording of pre-operative mobility, poor documentation of a pre-operative surgical plan, the low use of cemented fixation even in fit mobile patients and the lack of ASA grade recording (stratification of risk) by our anaesthetic colleagues.

We suggest a documented pre-operative discussion between the surgeon and anaesthetist to establish BCIS risk and decide on use of cemented arthroplasty taking into account age and mobility.


Correspondence should be sent to: Correspondence should be sent to: Mr R.M.D. Meek; email: