UNASSIGNED: A plain pelvic radiograph is usually conducted with the lower limbs in internal rotation. This is to correct the anteversion of the femur. However, in the fracture neck of the femur, internal rotation of the fractured limb is avoided, because it would be painful. We examined the effect of correction of anteversion or otherwise on the diameter of the head of the femur using imaging.
UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to determine if there was a significant difference between the femoral head diameter at two different positions, at the normal anatomical position (without correcting the anteversion) and at the corrected anteversion position. It also aimed to document the correlation and the statistical significance between the differences in the size of the diameter at these two different positions with the anteversion angles of the femoral bone.
UNASSIGNED: Two sets of digital photographs of the proximal part of 55 non-sexed, non-paired femoral bones were taken. Images obtained were at two positions: normal anatomical (with anteversion uncorrected) and anteversion corrected positions. The diameters of the head of the femur were documented at these two different positions. The anteversion angles and actual femoral head (AFH) diameters were also measured and documented.
UNASSIGNED: The femoral head diameters at anatomical positions were persistently larger than those measured after the anteversion was corrected, except in three femoral bones (5%) where no differences were observed. The difference in the two measurements was statistically significant to the anteversion angle of the femoral bone. (P = 0.0005). The means of the two sets of measurements were statistically different from each other. Pairwise correlation showed that both were strongly associated with the AFH diameter but the measurements from images with corrected anteversion had a higher value (0.8166) than the measurements from normal anatomical position (0.7526).
UNASSIGNED: The correction of femoral anteversion produced femoral head size measurements that were closer to AFH diameters compared to those without the correction of the femoral anteversion. Femoral anteversion should always be corrected as per protocol.

UNASSIGNED: The use of cemented fixation is widely recommended in hip arthroplasty for hip fractures, although it is not used universally.
UNASSIGNED: We describe the trends in cementing prevalence in hemiarthroplasty for hip fractures in Canada for patients ≥55 years old between April 2017 and March 2022.
UNASSIGNED: The national prevalence of cemented fixation increased from 43% in 2017/18 to 58% in 2021/22, but there was a large variety of both the baseline prevalence and the trends across the country and between individual hospitals. The proportion of surgeons only performing cementless fixation fell from 30% to 21% between 2018/19 and 2021/22.
UNASSIGNED: As cemented fixation is now universally recommended, more coordination is needed to track these trends and to help drive implementation of this evidence-based practice across Canada.

BACKGROUND: Acute unreconstructible 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fractures can be treated with hemiarthroplasty or reverse polarity shoulder arthroplasty. Randomized trials using implants from multiple different companies or uncemented implants have found superior results with reverse polarity arthroplasty.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether cemented reverse polarity arthroplasty produces a superior outcome compared to cemented hemiarthroplasty using one implant system in patients aged 65 years and over at 12 months follow-up as measured with the Constant score.
METHODS: A prospective patient and assessor blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted of shoulder hemiarthroplasty or reverse polarity arthroplasty in patients aged 65 years and older with acute 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fracture not amenable to osteosynthesis. The primary outcome was the Constant score at 12 months with total follow-up to 24 months. Block randomization by site was undertaken using random number generation and sealed envelopes. Power analysis indicated that 17 patients were required in each arm to achieve 80% power with an alpha-value of 5%. Secondary outcome measures were the difference in the mean Constant Score, Quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score and EQ5D-5L up to two years; differences in complication rate at one and two years; differences in revision and implant failure at one and two years.
RESULTS: 18 patients were randomized to hemiarthroplasty and 18 to reverse polarity arthroplasty across 4 sites. The primary outcome as measured by the Constant score at 12 months was better in the reverse polarity shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) group (Mean 51.1, s.d. 14.9) compared to the hemiarthroplasty (HA) group (mean 35.0, s.d. 13.5) (p=0.004). No significant difference was reported at 24 months but this may be due to high rates of attrition (22%). The mean EQ-5D-5L patient rated health status score was significantly higher in the RSA group compared to the HA group at 12 months. One hemiarthroplasty was revised due to implant uncoupling and one reverse polarity shoulder replacement was revised due to instability. No other complications were recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of unreconstructible 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fractures with reverse polarity shoulder arthroplasty results in a superior outcome compared to shoulder hemiarthroplasty at 12 months measured with the Constant score with no increased risk of failure up to 24 months in patients age 65 years and over. High attrition rates are observed in this older population due to cognitive decline and death from other causes.

The differences in complication rates between the direct anterior and posterior approaches for hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures are not yet fully understood. Dislocation, a severe complication associated with increased mortality and often requiring additional surgery, may occur less frequently with the direct anterior approach compared to the posterior approach. Careful consideration of patient demographics is essential when planning the surgical approach. Future research in this area should focus on robust randomized controlled trials involving elderly patients recovering from femoral neck fractures.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients maintaining functional independence can now be candidates for primary wrist hemiarthroplasty to manage acute irreparable distal radius fractures (DRFs). However, further investigation with long-term follow-up is required to validate these initial findings.
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the outcomes of distal radius hemiarthroplasty with available implants to assess its viability as a treatment option.
METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Scopus. The search terms employed were \"distal radius fracture\" , \"hemiarthroplasty\" , \"wrist arthroplasty\" , and related terminology. The search was restricted to articles published in English from 1980 until June 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed cases or case series of DRF treated with hemiarthroplasty, providing clinical or radiographic outcomes, and published in peer-reviewed journals.
RESULTS: A total of 2508 articles from PubMed and 883 from Scopus were identified initially. Following screening and removal of duplicates, 13 articles met the inclusion criteria. These articles, predominantly clinical retrospective studies, provided insights into hemiarthroplasty outcomes, including functional improvements and complications. Hemiarthroplasty was a treatment option for complex DRF, particularly those cases with severe comminution, intraarticular involvement, or severe osteoporosis. Functional outcomes demonstrated improvements in pain relief, wrist mobility, and grip strength, with variability across studies. Complications included implant loosening, infection, nerve injury, and stiffness, with varying incidence rates influenced by surgical techniques and implant choice. Long-term outcomes were inadequately documented, warranting further research.
CONCLUSIONS: Hemiarthroplasty is a promising treatment for irreparable DRF in the elderly. Long-term outcomes and complications require further study.

UNASSIGNED: Cemented hemiarthroplasty is an effective form of treatment for most patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip. However, it remains unclear whether there are subgroups of patients who may benefit from the alternative operation of a modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty - the aim of this study was to investigate this issue. Knowledge about the heterogeneity of treatment effects is important for surgeons in order to target operations towards specific subgroups who would benefit the most.
UNASSIGNED: We used causal forest analysis to compare subgroup- and individual-level treatment effects between cemented and modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty in patients aged > 60 years with an intracapsular fracture of the hip, using data from the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) multicentre randomized clinical trial. EuroQol five-dimension index scores were used to measure health-related quality of life at one, four, and 12 months postoperatively.
UNASSIGNED: Our analysis revealed a complex landscape of responses to the use of a cemented hemiarthroplasty in the 12 months after surgery. There was heterogeneity of effects with regard to baseline characteristics, including age, pre-injury health status, and lifestyle factors such as alcohol consumption. This heterogeneity was greater at the one-month mark than at subsequent follow-up timepoints, with particular regard to subgroups based on age. However, for all subgroups, the effect estimates for quality of life lay within the confidence intervals derived from the analysis of all patients.
UNASSIGNED: The use of a cemented hemiarthroplasty is expected to increase health-related quality of life compared with modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty for all subgroups of patients aged > 60 years with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip.

UNASSIGNED: Alkaptonuria is a rare autosomal recessive genetic disorder found in 2-5/million live births. It results in dark brown pigmentation of connective tissues including cartilage and joint capsule that can often lead to arthropathy of large joints. However, bone fractures are unusual. This article describes a fracture neck of the femur in a patient with undiagnosed alkaptonuria managed at a rural center.
UNASSIGNED: A 60-year-old daily wage laborer with previously pain-free hips presented with sudden onset pain in the left hip while walking with no prior history of trauma. Radiographs showed a displaced fracture of the neck of the left femur. She underwent Left hip hemiarthroplasty. Intraoperatively, her soft-tissue including the joint capsule and the femoral head had dark brown pigmentation. Postoperatively, her urine was tested and the same turned black supporting the clinical diagnosis of alkaptonuria. At her 1-year follow-up, she had a painless, stable, and mobile hip.
UNASSIGNED: We report a rare and unique case of neck of femur fracture in a patient with alkaptonuria treated with hemiarthroplasty in a resource-limited hospital in rural India. It is essential to consider the possibility of this condition when we come across a patient with an atypical fracture presentation. This article also presents an overview of alkaptonuria with a discussion on etiopathogenesis, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management.

BACKGROUND: Acetabular erosion is an important complication in hemiarthroplasty and may lead to total hip arthroplasty as a conversion. The results of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcome of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion with primary total hip arthroplasty.
METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were used and Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane libraries were searched. Both, studies comparing the outcome of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion with the outcome of primary total hip arthroplasty and the outcome of cohort studies limited to total hip arthroplasty as a conversion, were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non Randomized Studies checklist. Meta-analysis was performed concerning pooled annual revision, dislocation and infection rates.
RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were available for analysis; four comparative studies and 23 cohort studies. Comparative studies were defined as high quality and cohort studies as medium quality. Analysis revealed a significantly higher overall revision risk (Hazard Ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.14) after total hip arthroplasty as a conversion compared to primary total hip arthroplasty. The annual revision rate of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion was 1.63% (95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.33) in the comparative studies and 1.40% (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.66) in the cohort studies. A pooled infection rate of 4.34% (95% confidence interval 2.66 to 7.01) and dislocation rate of 4.79% (95% confidence interval 3.02 to 7.53), was found.
CONCLUSIONS: Literature concerning the results of total hip arthroplasty as a conversion is limited. The risk of revision after conversion of hemiarthroplasty is higher compared to primary total hip arthroplasty.

Background: Femoral neck fractures are among the most common types of fractures and particularly affect elderly patients. Two of the most common treatment strategies are total hip arthroplasty (THA) and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BA). However, the role of the different treatment strategies in the postoperative weight-bearing ability in the early postoperative phase is still not entirely clear. Methods: Patients who underwent either THA or BA were consecutively included in our prospective cohort study. Gait analysis was performed during the early postoperative period. The gait analysis consisted of a walking distance of 40 m coupled with the turning movement in between. During the gait analysis, the duration of the measurement, the maximum peak force and the average peak force were recorded. Results: A total of 39 patients were included, 25 of whom underwent BA and 14 of whom underwent THA. The maximum peak force during the gait analysis was, on average, 80.6% ± 19.5 of the body weight in the BA group and 78.9% ± 21.6 in the THA group. The additionally determined average peak force during the entire gait analysis was 66.8% ± 15.8 of the body weight in the BA group and 60.5% ± 15.6 in the THA group. Conclusions: Patients with femoral neck fractures undergoing THA and BA can achieve sufficient weight bearing on the operated leg in the early postoperative period. In our study, BA did not allow for a significantly higher average and maximum loading capacity compared with THA.

BACKGROUND: Multiple hemiarthroplasty (HA) approaches exist for femoral neck fracture (FNF) treatment. However, there is no consensus on the superiority of one approach for postoperative outcomes. This study assessed outcomes among randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the posterior approach (PA), direct lateral approach (DLA), anterolateral approach (ALA), and the direct anterior approach (DAA) in HA for FNF.
METHODS: PubMed, Ovid/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried in February 2024. A frequentist model network meta-analysis of eligible prospective RCTs compared outcomes among approaches using P-scores.
RESULTS: Of 1,481 retrieved studies, 11 RCTs totaling 1,513 FNF patients who underwent HA through a PA (n = 446; 29.5%), DLA (n = 481; 31.8%), ALA (n = 296; 19.6%), or DAA (n = 290; 19.2%) with median (interquartile range) follow-up of 6 (4.5-12.0) months were included for meta-analysis. DAA was associated with statistically increased operative duration (mean difference [MD], 1.89 minutes; 95% CI, 0.08 to 3.69 minutes; p < 0.001) compared with a PA, whereas an ALA was associated with statistically greater blood loss compared with a PA (MD, 5.81 mL; 95% CI, 4.11 to 7.50 mL; p < 0.001). There were no differences in the incidence of fracture, dislocation, infection, complications, revision, nor 1-year mortality among approaches. There were also no differences in hip nor pain score improvement at latest follow-up, although with high heterogeneity (I2 = 85.7% and 94.2%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: This study found no clinical difference in improvement in pain, function, nor in revision outcomes and operative characteristics among HA approaches for FNF, and each approach had a similar adverse event profile. Despite limited randomized evidence, these findings suggest comparable short-term efficacy and safety of all approaches.
METHODS: Therapeutic, Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.