The suitability of an uncemented hydroxyapatite coated (HAC) hip hemiarthroplasty stem for intra-capsular femoral neck fractures in osteoporotic elderly patients: the Metaphyseal-Diaphyseal index, a solution to preventing intra-operative periprosthetic fracture

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Farid Khan³  Carmel Keller¹  Ravi Singh⁴  Max R Edwards²  Chris Jack³  Reza Mansouri³  Rishi Chana³ 

[1] Institute of Postgraduate Medicine,Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 9PX, UK;Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Princess Royal University Hospital, South London, Healthcare NHS Trust, Farnborough Common, Orpington, BR6 8ND, Kent, UK;Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, South London Healthcare NHS Trust, Stadium Road, Greenwich, London, SE18 4QH, UK;Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Darent Valley Hospital, Darenth Wood Road, Dartford, DA2 8DA, Kent, UK

关键词: osteoporosis;    peri-prosthetic fracture;    Uncemented hemiarthroplasty;    Hip fracture;   

Others  :  823373
DOI  :  10.1186/1749-799X-6-59

 received in 2011-03-30, accepted in 2011-11-18,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

This study will seek to identify a measurable radiographic index, the Metaphyseal-Diaphyseal Index (MDI) score to determine whether intra-operative fracture in osteoporotic bone can be predicted.

A 5 year prospective cohort of 560 consecutive patients, undergoing hemiarthroplasty (cemented or uncemented),

was

evaluated. A nested case-control study to determine risk factors affecting intra-operative fracture was carried out.

The Vancouver Classification was used to classify periprosthetic fracture.

The MDI score was calculated using radiographs from the uncemented group. As a control (gold standard), Yeung et al's

Canal Bone Ratio

(CBR) score was also calculated. From this, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was formulated for both scores and area under the curve (AUC) compared. Intra and inter-observer correlations were determined.

Cost analysis was also worked out for adverse outcomes.

Four hundred and seven uncemented and one hundred and fifty-three cemented stems were implanted. The use of uncemented implants was the main risk factor for intra-operative periprosthetic fracture.

Sixty-two periprosthetic fractures occurred in the uncemented group (15.2%), nine occurred in the cemented group (5.9%), P < 0.001. The revision rate for sustaining a periprosthetic fracture (uncemented group) was 17.7%, P < 0.001 and 90 day mortality 19.7%, P < 0.03.

MDI's AUC was 0.985 compared to CBR's 0.948, P < 0.001. The MDI score cut-off to predict fracture was 21, sensitivity 98.3%, specificity 99.8%, positive predictive value 90.5% and negative predictive value 98%. Multivariate regression analysis ruled out any other confounding factors as being significant.

The intra and inter-observer Pearson correlation scores were r = 0.99, P < 0.001.

JRI uncemented hemiarthroplasty has a significantly higher intra-operative fracture rate. We recommend cemented arthroplasty for hip fractures. We propose a radiographic system that may allow surgeons to select patients who are good candidates for uncemented arthroplasty, but it needs prospective validation.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Chana et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Parker MJ, Gurusamy K: Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults. (Review). Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2006, (3):CD 001706.
• [2]Foster AP, Thompson NW, Wong J, Charlwood AP: Peri-prosthetic fractures- a comparison between cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasties. Injury Int J Care Injured 2005, 36:422-429.
• [3]Lennox IAC, McLauchlan J: Comparing the mortality and morbidity of cement and uncemented hemi-arthrloplasty. Injury 1993, 24:185-186.
• [4]Agarwal S, Andrews CM, Bakeer GM: Outcome following stabilization of type B1 peri-prosthetic femoral fractures. J Arthroplasty 2005, 20(1):118-121.
• [5]Khan RJK, MacDowell A, Crossman P, Keene GS: Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displace intracapsular fractures of the hip- a systematic review. Injury Int J Care Injured 2002, 33:13-17.
• [6]Moore AT: The self-locking metal hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 1957, 39-A:688-689.
• [7]Livesley PJ, Srivastiva VM, Needoff M, Prince HG, Moulton AM: Use of a hydroxyapatite-coated hemiarthroplasty in the management of subcapital fractures of the femur. Injury 1993, 24:236-420.
• [8]Shetty AA, Slack R, Tindall A, James KD, Rand C: Results of a hydroxyapatite coated (Furlong) total hip replacement. A 13 to15 year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 2005, 87-B:1050-4.
• [9]Rajaratnam SS, Jack C, Tavakkolizadeh A, George MD, Fletcher RJ, Hankins M, Shepperd JAN: Long-term results of a hydroxyapatite coated femoral component in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 2008, 90-B:27-30.
• [10]Chandran P, Kamath RP, Johnson GV: Intraoperative fractures during uncemented Furlong bipolar hemiarthroplasty. European Journal Orthopaedic Surgery & Trauma 2006. ISSN 1633-8065
• [11]Bezwada HP, Shah AR, Harding SH, Baker J, Johanson NA, Mont MA: Cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. J Arthroplasty 2004, 19(7 Suppl 2):2004.
• [12]Husmann O, Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, de Roguin B, Argenson JN: Three-dimensional Morphology of the Proximal Femur. J Arthroplasty 1997, 12(4):444-450.
• [13]Mitchell PA, Masri BA, Duncan CP: Periprosthetic fractures: Classification and management. Techniques in orthopaedics 2001, 16(3):291-309.
• [14]Yeung Y, Chiu KY, Yau WP, Tang WM, Cheung WY, Ng TP: Assessment of the proximal femoral morphology using plain radiograph- can it predict the bone quality? J Arthroplasty 2006, 21(4):508-513.
• [15]Gordis L: Epidemiology. 3rd edition. Elsevier Saunders, USA; 2004:136.
• [16]STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology Statement [http:/ / www.strobe-statement.org/ fileadmin/ Strobe/ uploads/ checklists/ STROBE_checklist_v4_case-control.pd f] webcite
• [17]Parker MJ, et al.: Conservative versus operative treatment in hip fractures (Cochrane review). The Cochrane Library 2002., (1) Oxford Update Software
• [18]Lang TA, Secic MS: How to report statistics in medicine: annotated guidelines for authors, editors and reviewers. American College of Physicians ACP series 1997, 167-168.
• [19]Mont MA, Maar DC, Krackow KA, Hungerford DS: Hoop stress fracture of the proximal femur during hip arthroplasty. Management and results in 19 cases. J Bone Joint Surg 1992, 74(2):257-260.
• [20]Parker MJ, Johansen A: Hip fracture, Clinical review. BMJ 2006, 333:27-30.
• [21]Epinette JA: HAC implants: a 10 year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traum 1999, 9(2):83-85.
• [22]Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB, Estok DM II, Malchau H: Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg 2007, 89:2658-62.
• [23]Getty J, Crome P: The care of patients with fragility fracture. [http://www.boa.ac.uk/site/showpublications.aspx?ID=59] webciteBOA-BGS Blue Book 2007.
• [24]SIGN: . [http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/qrg56.pdf] webciteScottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Prevention and management of hip fracture in older peopleOrthopaedics. Guideline 56