Failure Mode Analysis of an Exeter Stem Fracture Initiated at the Introducer Hole:Time for a Design Change?

The fracturing of a hip prosthesis stem at its neck, in the absence of a trauma, is an extremely rare but serious adverse event. The patient in our case was young, active, and tall, thereby putting high mechanical loads on the prosthesis. Radiographs of the initial procedure and blood and synovium analysis showed no abnormalities. Analysis of the stem revealed niobium-rich precipitates, that is, alloy artifacts, at the introducer stud hole. The mechanically vulnerable location of the introducer stud hole, combined with alloy artifacts at that location and high mechanical stress, ultimately led to failure of the prosthesis. As younger and heavier patients will demand hip arthroplasty in the future, simple stem design adaptations should be considered to prevent stem fractures at the introducer stud hole

Mortality in hip fracture patients after implementation of a nurse practitioner-led orthogeriatric care program:results of a 1-year follow-up

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major cause of mortality and disability in frail older adults. Therefore, orthogeriatrics has been embraced to improve patient outcomes. With the optimal template of orthogeriatric care still unknown, and to curtail rising healthcare expenditure we implemented a nurse practitioner-led orthogeriatric care program (NPOCP). The objective was to evaluate NPOCP by measuring 3-month and 1-year mortality, compared to usual care (UC). In addition, length of stay (LOS) and location of hospital discharge were reported. METHODS: An anonymised data set, of hip fracture patients (n = 300) who presented to Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, a level-1 trauma centre, was used. NPOCP was implemented on one of two surgical wards, while the other ward received UC. Patient allocation to these wards was random. RESULTS: In total, 144 patients received NPOCP and 156 received UC. In the NPOCP, 3-month and 1-year mortality rates were 9.0% and 13.9%, compared to 24.4% and 34.0% in the UC group (P < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for 3-month (aHR 0.50 [95%CI: 0.26-0.97]) and 1-year mortality (aHR 0.50 [95%CI: 0.29-0.85]) remained lower in NPOCP compared to UC. Median LOS was 9 days [IQR 5-13] in patients receiving UC and 7 days [IQR 5-13] in patients receiving NPOCP (P = 0.08). Thirty-eight (27.5%) patients receiving UC and fifty-seven (40.4%) patients receiving NPOCP were discharged home (P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Implementation of NPOCP was associated with significantly reduced mortality in hip fracture patients and may contribute positively to high-quality care and improve outcomes in the frail orthogeriatric population

Survival and reasons for revision of the uncemented Symax hip stem: A Dutch Arthroplasty Register study.

AimsPrevious studies have already shown early proximal ingrowth, fast osseous integration, and a stable fit of the uncemented Symax hip stem, with excellent clinical and radiographic performance. Aims were to evaluate cumulative revision rates and reasons for revision of the Symax hip stem using Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) data and to assess possible associations between patient characteristics and revision rate of the Symax hip stem.Patients and methodsAll total hip arthroplasties with the uncemented Symax hip stem registered in the LROI between 2007 and 2017 were included (n = 5,013). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to assess the cumulative 1, 5 and 7-year revision percentages. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to assess the association between patient and procedural characteristics, and revision arthroplasty of the stem.ResultsCumulative 1, 5, and 7-year revision rates (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) for revision of any component were 1.5% (CI 1.2%-1.8%), 3.2% (CI 2.7%-3.7%), and 3.8% (CI 3.1%-4.4%) respectively. Cumulative 1, 5, and 7-year stem revision rates of the Symax hip stem were 0.9% (CI 0.6%-1.1%), 1.5% (CI 1.1%-1.9%), and 1.7% (CI 1.3%-2.1%) respectively. Periprosthetic fractures (n = 35) and loosening of the stem (n = 30) were the most common reasons for revision of the stem. Revision of the stem was associated with acute fracture as primary diagnosis (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.4 (CI 1.3-4.3)), or history of a previous surgery to the affected hip (HR 2.7 (CI 1.4-5.2)).ConclusionThis population-based registry study shows revision rates for the Symax hip stem comparable to those for best performing uncemented total hip arthroplasties in the Netherlands. Primary diagnosis of an acute fracture, and history of previous surgery on the affected hip, were significantly associated risk factors for revision of the Symax hip stem, and we discourage the use of the Symax hip stem in these patients

Associations between presence of diabetes, mortality and fracture type in individuals with a hip fracture

AIMS: An overlooked aspect of diabetes is an increased risk of hip fractures, with associated mortality. We investigated whether fracture type and/or burden of comorbidities explains the increased risk of mortality in diabetes after hip fracture. METHODS: For this cohort study, we used a de-identified data set of hip fracture patients registered in a quality-of-care registry (2017/2018) included in Maastricht University Medical Centre. RESULTS: Among 594 hip fracture patients, 90 (15.2 %) had diabetes. Median (IQR) age was 82 (71-87) years and 63.8 % were women. Compared to patients without, patients with diabetes had higher median Charlson Comorbidity Index [1 (0-2) vs 0 (0-2), P < 0.001)] and were more likely to sustain intertrochanteric/subtrochanteric fractures [54.4 vs 38.7 %, P = 0.02]. Over a median follow-up of 2.7 (1.6-3.3) years, crude mortality rate was 30.8 % in patients without and 50.0 % in patients with diabetes. This association remained unaltered after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, fracture type or burden of co-morbidities. CONCLUSION: Individuals with diabetes display a greatly increased absolute mortality risk after hip fracture. This association was not attenuated after adjustment for fracture type or non-diabetes associated co-morbidity. These findings have important implications for diabetes care in hip fracture patients, and underline the importance of fracture prevention