G7 Dual Mobility System Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fracture

Author(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 102-B (7) ◽  
pp. 811-821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel You ◽  
Aresh Sepehri ◽  
Sahil Kooner ◽  
Halli Krzyzaniak ◽  
Herman Johal ◽  
...  

Aims Dislocation is the most common indication for further surgery following total hip arthroplasty (THA) when undertaken in patients with a femoral neck fracture. This study aimed to assess the complication rates of THA with dual mobility components (THA-DMC) following a femoral neck fracture and to compare outcomes between THA-DMC, conventional THA, and hemiarthroplasty (HA). Methods We performed a systematic review of all English language articles on THA-DMC published between 2010 and 2019 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. After the application of rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 studies dealing with patients who underwent treatment for a femoral neck fracture using THA-DMC were analyzed for the rate of dislocation. Secondary outcomes included reoperation, periprosthetic fracture, infection, mortality, and functional outcome. The review included 7,189 patients with a mean age of 77.8 years (66.4 to 87.6) and a mean follow-up of 30.9 months (9.0 to 68.0). Results THA-DMC was associated with a significantly lower dislocation rate compared with both THA (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79) and HA (odds ratio (OR) 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.50). The rate of large articulations and of intraprosthetic dislocation was 1.5% (n = 105) and 0.04% (n = 3) respectively. Conclusion THA-DMC when used in patients with a femoral neck fracture is associated with a lower dislocation rate compared with conventional arthroplasty options. There was no increase in the rates of other complication when THA-DMC was used. Future cost analysis and prospective, comparative studies are required to assess the potential benefit of using THA-DMC in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):811–821.


Author(s):  
Hong Xu ◽  
Jin-Wei Xie ◽  
Li Liu ◽  
Duan Wang ◽  
Ze-Yu Huang ◽  
...  

Aims Monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) or neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are useful for diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), but their diagnostic values are unclear for screening fixation-related infection (FRI) in patients for whom conversion total hip arthroplasty (THA) is planned after failed internal fixation for femoral neck fracture. Methods We retrospectively included 340 patients who underwent conversion THA after internal fixation for femoral neck fracture from January 2008 to September 2020. Those patients constituted two groups: noninfected patients and patients diagnosed with FRI according to the 2013 International Consensus Meeting Criteria. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine maximum sensitivity and specificity of these two preoperative ratios. The diagnostic performance of the two ratios combined with preoperative CRP or ESR was also evaluated. Results The numbers of patients with and without FRI were 19 (5.6%) and 321 (94.4%), respectively. Areas under the ROC curve for diagnosing FRI were 0.763 for MLR, 0.686 for NLR, 0.905 for CRP, and 0.769 for ESR. Based on the Youden index, the optimal predictive cutoffs were 0.25 for MLR and 2.38 for NLR. Sensitivity and specificity were 78.9% and 71.0% for MLR, and 78.9% and 56.4% for NLR, respectively. The combination of CRP with MLR showed a sensitivity of 84.2% and specificity of 94.6%, while the corresponding values for the combination of CRP with NLR were 89.5% and 91.5%, respectively. Conclusion The presence of preoperative FRI among patients undergoing conversion THA after internal fixation for femoral neck fracture should be determined. The combination of preoperative CRP with NLR is sensitive tool for screening FRI in those patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-48
Author(s):  
Kyle H. Cichos ◽  
Scott E. Mabry ◽  
Clay A. Spitler ◽  
Gerald McGwin ◽  
Jonathan H. Quade ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Elizabeth B. Gausden ◽  
William W. Cross ◽  
Tad M. Mabry ◽  
Mark W. Pagnano ◽  
Daniel J. Berry ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document