Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39735082›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Salvage Total Hip Replacement for Failed Proximal Femoral Fracture Fixation.

Zain Habib, Aditya Malik, Matthew Moran, Muhammad Umer Rasool, Mohammed Arifuzaman, Azeem Ahmed, Rama Mohan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Zain HabibTrauma and Orthopaedics, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, GBR.
Aditya MalikTrauma and Orthopaedics, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, GBR.
Matthew MoranIntensive Care Unit, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, GBR.
Muhammad Umer RasoolTrauma and Orthopaedics, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, GBR.
Mohammed ArifuzamanGeneral Surgery, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, GBR.
Azeem AhmedTrauma and Orthopaedics, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, GBR.
Rama MohanTrauma and Orthopaedics, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSalvage arthroplasty for failed proximal femoral fracture fixation is a complex procedure. This involves the removal of the primary failed or broken implant followed by a hip joint replacement procedure. The complications and technical difficulties associated with these surgeries are often difficult to anticipate.

methodsInitially, to further understand the position in the literature with regard to salvage arthroplasty, we completed an informative scoping review. Search terms were selected, and databases Embase and PubMed were utilised to form a literature search. Relevant articles were selected by two independent researchers, with a final list of nine studies reviewed and tabulated for themes to be identified and analysed. Subsequently, we retrospectively studied the notes of all the patients who underwent complex conversion arthroplasty in the same district hospitals in a span of 16 years (August 2002 to August 2018) and presented the results.

resultsSeventy-one patients underwent complex salvage arthroplasty following a failed fixation of proximal femoral fracture under the care of three different surgeons. All surgeries were carried out by the posterior approach. The demographics, intraoperative events, and postoperative follow-up have been presented through clinical and radiological assessments. With a mean age being 73.6, female patients were almost twice the number of male patients. The left hip was the more common surgical site. Implant cutout was the most common cause of failure of the primary implant. Most of these surgeries were either uncemented (31 cases, 43.66%) or hybrid (29 cases, 40.84%). The most common acetabular size to be used was 50 mm, and the most common head size used was 32 mm. A majority of the surgeries were metal on poly bearings (64 cases, 90.14%). The mean surgical time, including anesthetic, was four hours and 13 minutes. A total of 31 (44%) patients needed blood transfusion postoperatively. The infection rate was 21.13% (15 cases), being the most common surgical complication. The mean follow-up of the patients was 27.2 months with the maximum follow-up being 125 months. The one-year mortality was found to be 14% (10 cases). The mean limb length discrepancy was shortening by an average of 3.84 mm. A total of 66.2% (47 cases) of patients were shortened postoperatively. The average cup abduction and anteversion angles were 35° and 24.25°, respectively. The average position of the femoral stem was 0.31° in the varus with 40.85% (29 cases) of patients having a slightly varus stem.

conclusionUpon drawing comparisons with primary hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis through data available in the literature, it is obvious that salvage arthroplasty is a complex procedure with longer surgical times and onerous rehabilitation. Whilst it is not the same as revision arthroplasty, many of the characteristics in terms of surgical planning and outcomes are similar. Therefore, it is our recommendation that salvage hip arthroplasty procedures should be categorised, listed, and studied separately from primary arthroplasty in the National Joint Registry database.

Indexed as

complex arthroplastyhip revision arthroplastylong-term clinical outcomesradiological outcomesrevision arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID39735082
PMCPMC11677087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.