Abstract
Purpose
The primary aim was to assess whether a total hip arthroplasty (THA) was able to restore health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following an intracapsular hip fracture. The secondary aims were to assess changes in hip-specific function, fitness/frailty, mortality risk, complications and revision risk, and factors independently associated with these.
Methods
This retrospective cohort study included all patients aged ≥ 50 years admitted with a hip fracture from the emergency department at a single centre during a 42-month period. Patient demographics, perioperative variables, complications, revision, and mortality were collected. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed at final follow-up.
Results
Among 250 identified patients, 189 (75.6%) were women with a mean age of 70.3 (range 50–94 years). Mean follow-up was 2.3 (SD 1.1) years. The implant and patient survival rates at 2 years were both 95.5% (95% confidence intervals (CI) +/− 2.7). Older age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, 95% CI 1.12–1.33, p < 0.001) and male sex (HR 3.33, 95% CI 1.15–10.0, p = 0.026) were independently associated with mortality. There were 19 (7.6%) postoperative complications that included 6 (2.4%) periprosthetic fractures, 5 (2.0%) deep infections, and 8 (3.2%) dislocations, of which 13 underwent revision. Increasing time to theatre (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.03, p = 0.017) was independently associated with a postoperative complication. Postoperative PROMs were available for 166 (66.4%) patients. There were significant (p < 0.001) deteriorations in EuroQol-5D (Mean difference [MD] 0.192, 95% CI 0.133–0.252), Oxford hip score (MD 2.5, 95% CI 1.5–3.6), and fitness (Rockwood score MD 0.7, 95% CI 0.5–0.8) relative to preoperative levels of function.
Conclusion
THA may be the treatment of choice in a physically active patient with the aim of restoring their HRQoL, hip function, and fitness, but this was not observed. Furthermore, there was a high complication rate which was associated with increasing time to theatre.
Level of evidence
III, retrospective cohort study.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Intracapsular hip fractures are common in the elderly population and are associated with a significant burden of morbidity and mortality [1, 2]. Each year in the UK, there are over 65,000 reported cases of hip fractures, with approximately half of them presenting as intracapsular hip fractures [3]. By 2029, it is estimated that there will be a 32% increase in individuals presenting with a hip fracture to healthcare services, with older adults experiencing the biggest relative increase in volume over time. Based on these projections, the overall length of hospital stay following hip fracture will increase by 60,699 days per year, incurring an additional cost of approximately £25 million [4]. Given this demographic shift towards an ageing and increasingly multimorbid population, it is imperative to understand the outcomes associated with hip arthroplasty for intracapsular hip fractures.
The aim of a THA for an intracapsular hip fracture is to restore a patient’s HRQoL to the fullest extent possible. The current guidelines from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend total hip arthroplasty (THA) over hemiarthroplasty (HA) for patients capable of mobilising independently with minimal aid, are cognitively intact, and medically fit for the procedure [5]. This guidance is founded on the rationale that THA generally results in superior functional outcomes compared to HA [6, 7] as fitter patients are more likely to tolerate a bigger operation and benefit from better functional outcomes. There is however conflicting evidence as to whether THA provides a clinically significant improvement over HA in functional outcomes and quality of life [5, 8]. It is also well documented that THA involves longer operation duration, increased blood loss, and higher rates of dislocation and revision surgery compared to HA [9,10,11]. There is less evidence regarding the incidence and risk of periprosthetic fractures specifically in patients undergoing THA for intracapsular hip fractures. Furthermore, there is a lack of comprehensive assessments pertaining to changes in frailty/fitness and hip-specific function following THA, and more specifically, the authors are not aware of any studies investigating the restoration of patients to their pre-injury functional status following THA. This study aims to address gaps in the knowledge of the functional outcome following THA for a hip fracture, thereby enhancing the ability to inform patients about potential, functional outcomes, risks and benefits associated with THA. Additionally, it will assist clinicians in optimising their practices to prevent and minimise adverse outcomes in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty procedures. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether a THA was able to restore HRQoL following an intracapsular hip fracture. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in HRQoL following THA. Secondary aims were to assess changes in hip-specific function, fitness/frailty, mortality, complication, and revision risks, and identify factors independently associated with these outcomes.
Materials and methods
This retrospective cohort study involved all patients aged 50 and above who were admitted with acute hip fractures to a large orthopaedic trauma centre over a 42-month period (1st January 2019–30th June 2022). Serving a population of about 850,000, this trauma centre manages approximately 1300 hip fractures annually [32]. The inclusion criteria were patients with intracapsular hip fractures who lived within the catchment area and underwent THA. Exclusion criteria were isolated fractures of the acetabulum, pubic ramus, greater trochanter, and periprosthetic fractures. Patients were retrospectively identified from the local hip fracture database, with continuous prospective data collection as part of the national Scottish Hip Fracture Audit (SHFA) [32]. Data on patient demographics, fracture type, time to theatre, ASA grade, length of stay, and mortality were collected from electronic health records (EHRs) (TrakCare, InterSystems Corporation, MA, USA) and contemporaneous documentation. Time to theatre was measured according to SHFA guidelines, from ward admission to the start of anaesthesia. Specialist local audit coordinators, familiar with hip fractures and the trauma unit, compiled the data, which were then reviewed for completeness as part of SHFA’s routine activities. All data handling complied with the UK Caldicott principles. Ethical approval for data collection/analysis was obtained from the Scotland Research Ethics Committee (Ref No 20/SS/0125).
Each patient’s socioeconomic status was determined using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), which evaluates seven domains: current income, employment, health, education, skills and training, housing, geographic access, and crime [12]. In this study, the most recent SIMD rankings published in 2020 were employed to categorise patients into quintiles of local data zone deprivations, ranging from 1 (most deprived) to 5 (least deprived), based on their postcode at the time of injury.
Outcomes
Patient mortality status was sourced from the EHR of the local hospital, the sole healthcare provider for the catchment population. This information was retrieved using each patient’s Community Health Index (CHI) number, a unique national patient identifier. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were gathered postoperatively, encompassing inquiries into both pre and postoperative outcomes.
The Oxford hip score (OHS) is a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the effects of pain and functional limitations in individuals undergoing hip arthroplasty [13]. Comprising 12 questions, it employs a 5-item Likert response format and yields scores ranging from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating improved outcomes. Widely validated and commonly used in THA patients, the OHS has a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 8 points [14].
The EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire assesses general health across five domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression [15]. Utilising the three-level version (3L) of the EQ-5D questionnaire, responses for each domain are recorded at three severity levels (none/slight problems; moderate/severe; or unable/extreme problems) [16]. Permission to utilise the UK interviewer-administered version of the EQ-5D-3L was obtained from the EuroQol Research Foundation (Marten Meesweg 107, 3068 AV Rotterdam, Netherland). The index ranges from − 0.594 to 1, with a score of 1 representing perfect health and 0 representing death. Scores below zero on the EQ-5D represent a health state considered worse than death [17]. The MCID for the EQ-5D score post-THA is 0.08; therefore, a change of 0.08 or more in the score was deemed as clinically significant [18].
The Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was used to determine the level of frailty [19]. This scale rates patients on a scale of 1–9, with 1 indicating “very fit” and 9 indicating “terminally ill”. Frailty status was assessed both at the time of assessment and 6 months prior to assessment. The CFS is validated for retrospective application [20].
Data analyses
Data analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (IBM, Inc., Armonk, New York, USA) version 17. Independent (age, time to theatre) and paired (PROMs) Student’s t-tests were used to assess significant differences in continuous variables between groups and changes from preoperative to postoperative states. Categorical variables (sex, SIMD, and ASA grade) were assessed using a Chi-squared test for between-group comparisons. Kaplan–Meier time-to-event methodology was used to assess patient survival. Cox regression analysis was used to assess the independent association of factors with patient mortality when adjusting for confounding variables. The predictive value of age on mortality was evaluated using a receiver operative characteristic (ROC) curve, with the area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 50% (no predictive value) to 100% (perfect predictor). Statistical significance was defined as a p-value of < 0.05.
A power calculation was performed, based on the MCID for the EQ-5D score as a measure of HRQoL which is 0.08 and has a standard of 0.3 [21]. To achieve 90% power and using an alpha of 0.05 (two tailed), a minimum of 147 patients would be required. Therefore, to achieve the number of patients required to meet the power calculation with an estimated 3-year mortality of 10% and loss to follow-up of 30% [22], a 42-month study period was chosen.
Results
During the study period, 250 patients presented to the ED with an acute hip fracture that had a THA for an intracapsular hip fracture. There were 189 (75.6%) women with a mean age of 70.3 (range 50–94 years). Mean time to theatre, from admission to the ward, was 26.2 (SD 17.3) hours. Median length of acute hospital stay was 6 (interquartile range 4–8) days. The mean follow-up was 2.3 (SD 1.1) years.
During the follow-up period, there were 14 (5.5%) deaths identified. The survival rates according to follow-up are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1. Male sex (p = 0.022), older age (p < 0.001), and greater ASA grade (p < 0.001) were associated with mortality following THA (Table 2). When adjusting for confounding factors, older age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.22, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.12–1.33, p < 0.001) and male sex (HR 3.33, 95% CI 1.15–10.0, p = 0.026) were independently associated with mortality. Older age was a moderate predictor of mortality, with an AUC of 78.5% (95% CI 65.7–91.2, p < 0.001) and a threshold of 74 years was associated with 64.3% sensitivity and 65.3% specificity (Fig. 2).
There were 19 (7.6%) postoperative complications of which there were 6 (2.4%) periprosthetic fractures, 5 (2.0%) deep infections, and 8 (3.2%) dislocations. One patient had a dislocation and then had a subsequent deep infection requiring debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention; therefore, 18 patients had a serious complication. Increasing time to theatre (p = 0.006) was associated with postoperative complications (Table 3). When adjusting for confounding factors, increasing time to theatre (HR 1.02 per hour, 95% CI 1.01–1.03, p = 0.017) was independently associated with a postoperative complication. Of the eight dislocations, five underwent revision, and of the six periprosthetic fractures, four underwent revision (three ORIF and one revision) for B2-type fractures, and the other two were type A that were managed conservatively. Therefore, 13 revisions were undertaken in the study cohort and survival is shown in Table 1 and Fig. 3. When adjusting for confounding factors, increasing time to theatre (HR 1.02 per hour, 95% CI 1.01–1.04, p = 0.010) was independently associated with a postoperative revision.
Postoperative PROMs were available for 166 (70.3%) patients of the 236 that were alive at a follow-up of 2.2 years (SD 1.0). Of the 70 patients lost to follow-up to PROMs, 47 were uncontactable and 23 refused to participate. There were no differences in sex (p = 0.982), age (p = 0.09), SIMD p = 0.820), and ASA grade (p = 0.627) between those lost to follow-up and those responding to PROMs. There were significant (p < 0.001) deteriorations in hip-specific function (OHS) and HRQoL (EQ-5D) relative to preoperative levels of function (Table 4). This was also associated with an increased Rockwood frailty score (Table 4).
Discussion
This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the impact of THA on restoring HRQoL following intracapsular hip fracture, evaluate changes in hip-specific function, fitness/frailty, mortality, complication and revision risks, and identify factors independently associated with these outcomes. There was a significant decline in hip-specific function (OHS) and HRQoL (EQ-5D), along with an increase (worsening) in patient frailty relative to pre-injury status. After adjusting for confounding factors, older age and male sex were independently associated with increased mortality risk postoperatively. There were 19 (7.6%) postoperative complications, and increasing time to theatre was independently associated with both postoperative complications and revision.
Limitations of the study include a single-centre retrospective design which involves a relatively smaller patient group compared to registry-based analyses. However, registry-based analyses often lack the level of detail that is available in smaller datasets, which allowed adequate adjustment for confounding factors. Another limitation pertains to the use of PROMs, which are subjective evaluations susceptible to external influences, such as memory issues [23]. Older age, often associated with memory problems and cognitive decline [24], may impact the accuracy of recalling pre-injury functionality. Studies report that up to 47% of elderly individuals with hip fractures may have underlying cognitive impairment [25], potentially introducing a misrepresentation of pre-injury status and compromising the reliability of preoperative and postoperative comparisons. Furthermore, unrealistic expectations or a lack of understanding regarding the limitations of the intervention may contribute to perceived dissatisfaction with postoperative outcomes.
During the follow-up, 14 patient deaths occurred. Both male sex and older age were independently associated with increased mortality after adjusting for confounding factors, a finding consistent with studies by Comba et al. [26] and Memtsoudis et al. [27]. The exact reasons for the increased mortality in men following lower limb arthroplasty remain unclear, although hormonal differences between sexes have been proposed as a possible protective factor for female patients [26]. Given that both male sex and increasing age are non-reversible and non-adjustable risk factors, it raises the question of whether gender and age should be considered when deciding the best treatment option for intracapsular hip fracture. Despite the significantly higher mortality in men, the majority of hip fracture patients are women, with incidence rates increasing with age [28]. However, this does not diminish the importance of a management option with reduced mortality in men sustaining intracapsular hip fractures, particularly considering the projected surge in hip fracture incidence by 2029 [4].
Previous studies have identified that time to theatre is a potential reversible risk factor associated with increased mortality following hip fracture fixation [29], although this was not observed in the current study. This discrepancy is likely due to the relatively small sample size of patients in this current study (n = 250). This is however consistent with the findings of Farrow et al. [30] which similarly found no association of time to theatre with mortality risk in those undergoing THA for a hip fracture based on national registry data. However, the findings of the current study found that increased time to theatre was independently associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and revision surgery, after adjusting for confounding factors. Factors contributing to increased time to theatre include limited theatre availability, lack of theatre staff, and stabilisation of the patient’s medical conditions [31]. A previous study demonstrated that implementing the “Big 6”, a series of interventions aimed at optimising patients with hip fractures for early surgery in the emergency department, resulted in a 2-h shorter time to theatre, and thus a reduction in patient mortality following acute hip fracture repair, although this was not specific to patients receiving THA [32]. Common complications leading to THA revision, such as dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, and infection [33], were observed in our patient group. In this study, the incidence rate of postoperative complications was 7.6%. Previous studies have consistently identified advancing age, rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, and ASA > 2 as factors associated with increased risk of postoperative complications [34,35,36]. Revision surgery is widely recognised for its association with longer operating times, intraoperative risk, increased complication rates and patient morbidity, and inferior outcomes compared to primary THA [37, 38]. The increased incidence of revisions not only leads to diminished theatre availability but also contributes to prolonged hospital stays. Targeted strategies to optimise preoperative risk assessment and postoperative care based on identified risk factors should be implemented to mitigate potential postoperative complications and revision surgeries.
The current NICE guidelines recommend THA over HA for patients capable of mobilising independently with minimal aid, are cognitively intact, and medically fit for the procedure [5]. The prevailing belief is that THA generally yields superior functional outcomes compared to HA [6, 7]. The current study shows a significant reduction in hip-specific function (OHS) and HRQoL (EQ-5D), along with an increase in patient frailty relative to pre-injury status. To the knowledge of the authors, there is currently no existing literature that explores the restoration of patients to their pre-injury status following a THA for an intracapsular fracture. Therefore, although THA may be thought to offer a better functional outcome relative to HA [6, 7], patients should be made aware of their potential deterioration in function following their injury.
These findings may be attributed to individual factors such as age, overall health, and comorbidities, which can impact an individual’s ability to fully regain preoperative function [39, 40]. The mean age of patients in this study is 70.3, a decade younger than the average of those who sustain a hip fracture [32]. Elderly individuals are more susceptible to postoperative cognitive dysfunction [24] and exhibit lower postoperative activity levels compared to younger patients [41] posing challenges in rehabilitation and recovery. Lack of engagement in or adherence to a comprehensive rehabilitation programme may hinder the achievement of optimal functional outcomes. Moreover, older patients often have pre-existing comorbidities, which can further complicate their recovery process and negatively impact overall functional outcomes. A comparable study by Clement et al. [41] reported that increasing age did not influence hip-specific functional outcome or HRQoL following THA; however, their patient cohort comprised individuals undergoing THA for degenerative joint disease. Fractured neck of femur, especially intracapsular fractures, inflicts significant trauma and damage to the hip joint. The severity and complex nature of these fractures pose challenges to the complete restoration of preoperative function. Furthermore, while THA addresses the patient’s fracture, it does not fully replicate the native anatomy and biomechanics of the hip joint [42] which could result in limitations concerning range of motion, stability, and overall function.
Conclusion
THA may be the treatment of choice in physically active patients with the aim of restoring their HRQoL, hip function, and fitness, but this was not observed. Older age and male sex were independently associated with increased mortality risk postoperatively. There was a high complication rate that affected approximately one in 12 patients which was associated with increasing time to theatre.
References
Civinini R, Paoli T, Cianferotti L et al (2019) Functional outcomes and mortality in geriatric and fragility hip fractures-results of an integrated, multidisciplinary model experienced by the “Florence hip fracture unit.” Int Orthop 43(1):187–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4132-3
Mitchell R, Harvey L, Brodaty H, Draper B et al (2017) One-year mortality after hip fracture in older individuals: the effects of delirium and dementia. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 72:135–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2017.06.006
Judge A, Javaid MK, Leal J et al (2016) Models of care for the delivery of secondary fracture prevention after hip fracture: a health service cost clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness study within a region of England Southampton (UK). Health Serv Deliv Res. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr04280
Harris E, Farrow L, Martin C et al (2023) The historic and projected hip fracture burden and incidence in Scotland: 2017–2029. Orthop Proc 105(11):30–30. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2023.11.030
No Authors Listed. Full guideline|Hip fracture: management|Guidance|NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg124/resources/cg124-hip-fracture-full-guideline. Accessed 3 January 2023
Parker MJ, Gurusamy KS, Azegami S (2010) Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001706.pub4
Peng W, Bi N, Zheng J et al (2020) Does total hip arthroplasty provide better outcomes than hemiarthroplasty for the femoral neck fracture? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chin J Traumatol 23(6):356–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2020.09.005
HEALTH Investigators, Bhandari M, Einhorn TA, et al (2019) Total hip arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 381(23):2199–2208.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1906190
Maceroli M, Nikkel LE, Mahmood B et al (2016) Total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures: improved outcomes with higher hospital volumes. J Orthop Trauma 30(11):597–604. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000662
Burgers PT, Van Geene AR, Van den Bekerom MP et al (2012) Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the healthy elderly: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized trials. Int Orthop 36(8):1549–1560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1569-7
Hedbeck CJ, Enocson A, Lapidus G et al (2011) Comparison of bipolar hemiarthroplasty with total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a concise four-year follow-up of a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(5):445–450. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00474
No Authors Listed. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2020-gov.scot. https://www.gov.scot/collections/scottish-index-of-multiple-deprivation-2020/, Accessed 30 March 2022
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A et al (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 78(2):185–190
Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J et al (2015) Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 68(1):73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009
Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37(1):53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6
Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35(11):1095–1108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002
Scott CEH, MacDonald DJ, Howie CR (2019) “Worse than death” and waiting for a joint arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 101-B(8):941–950. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B8.BJJ-2019-0116.R1
Larsen K, Hansen TB, Søballe K (2008) Hip arthroplasty patients benefit from accelerated perioperative care and rehabilitation: a quasi-experimental study of 98 patients. Acta Orthop 79(5):624–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670810016632
Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C et al (2005) A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 173(5):489–495. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.050051
Stille K, Temmel N, Hepp J et al (2020) Validation of the clinical frailty scale for retrospective use in acute care. Eur Geriatr Med 11(6):1009–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-020-00370-7
Yapp LZ, Scott CEH, Howie CR et al (2022) Meaningful values of the EQ-5D-3L in patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt Res 11(9):619–628. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.119.BJR-2022-0054.R1
Anakwe RE, Middleton SD, Jenkins PJ et al (2012) Total hip replacement in patients with hip fracture: a matched cohort study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 73(3):738–742. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3182569ee4
Weinfurt KP, Reeve BB (2022) Patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research. JAMA 328(5):472–473. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.11238
Kotekar N, Kuruvilla CS, Murthy V (2014) Post-operative cognitive dysfunction in the elderly: a prospective clinical study. Indian J Anaesth 58(3):263–268. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.135034
Haywood KL, Brett J, Tutton E et al (2017) Patient-reported outcome measures in older people with hip fracture: a systematic review of quality and acceptability. Qual Life Res 26(4):799–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1424-1
Comba F, Alonso Hidalgo I, Buttaro M et al (2012) Risk factor analysis for 30-day mortality after primary THA in a single institution. HSS J 8(2):111–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-012-9279-7
Memtsoudis SG, Della Valle AG, Besculides MC et al (2010) Risk factors for perioperative mortality after lower extremity arthroplasty: a population-based study of 6,901,324 patient discharges. J Arthroplast 25(1):19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.010
Rapp K, Büchele G, Dreinhöfer K et al (2019) Epidemiology of hip fractures: systematic literature review of German data and an overview of the international literature. Z Gerontol Geriatr 52(1):10–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-018-1382-z
Welford P, Jones CS, Davies G et al (2021) The association between surgical fixation of hip fractures within 24 hours and mortality a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Jt J 103-B(7):1176–1186. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B7.BJJ-2020-2582.R1
Farrow L, Clement ND, Mitchell L et al (2023) Does the time to surgery influence outcomes for patients with a hip fracture who undergo total hip arthroplasty? Bone Jt J 105-B(11):1201–1205. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.105B11.BJJ-2023-0597.R1
Simunovic N, Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M (2011) Surgery for hip fractures: does surgical delay affect outcomes? Indian J Orthop 45(1):27–32. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.73660
Clement ND, Penfold RS, Duffy A et al (2023) Completion of the emergency department “big 6” in patients with an acute hip fracture is associated with a lower mortality risk and shorter length of hospital stay. J Clin Med 12(17):5559. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175559
Kelmer G, Stone AH, Turcotte J et al (2021) Reasons for revision: primary total hip arthroplasty mechanisms of failure. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 29(2):78–87. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00860
Kong L, Cao J, Zhang Y et al (2017) Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection following primary total hip or knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Int Wound J 14(3):529–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12640
Kunutsor SK, Barrett MC, Beswick AD et al (2019) Risk factors for dislocation after primary total hip replacement: meta-analysis of 125 studies involving approximately five million hip replacements. Lancet Rheumatol 1(2):e111–e121. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2665-9913(19)30045-1
Zhu Y, Chen W, Sun T et al (2015) Risk factors for the periprosthetic fracture after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Surg 104(3):139–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496914543979
Oltean-Dan D, Apostu D, Tomoaia G et al (2022) Causes of revision after total hip arthroplasty in an orthopedics and traumatology regional center. Med Pharm Rep 95(2):179–184. https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr-2136
Postler AE, Beyer F, Wegner T et al (2017) Patient-reported outcomes after revision surgery compared to primary total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 27(2):180–186. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000436
Shi HY, Khan M, Culbertson R et al (2009) Health-related quality of life after total hip replacement: a Taiwan study. Int Orthop 33(5):1217–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0682-0
Gordon M, Greene M, Frumento P et al (2014) Age- and health-related quality of life after total hip replacement: decreasing gains in patients above 70 years of age. Acta Orthop 85(3):244–249. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.916492
Clement ND, Smith KM, Baron YJ et al (2022) Increasing age does not influence hip-specific functional outcome or health-related quality of life following total hip arthroplasty : a five-year prospective cohort study. Bone Jt Open 3(9):692–700. https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.39.BJO-2022-0085.R1
Tsai TY, Dimitriou D, Li G et al (2014) Does total hip arthroplasty restore native hip anatomy? Three-dimensional reconstruction analysis. Int Orthop 38(8):1577–1583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2401-3
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Edinburgh Orthopaedics for their support of this study.
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organisation for the submitted work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
LH, NC, and PG were involved in the study conceptualisation and methodology. All authors were involved in writing the original draft and reviewing and editing of subsequent drafts of the manuscript. NC led the formal data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, as well as the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments or equivalent ethical standards. This article does not include any animal studies conducted by the authors. Ethical approval for data collection/analysis was obtained from the Scotland Research Ethics Committee (Ref No 20/SS/0125).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ho, L., Ford, B., Gaston, P. et al. Total hip arthroplasty for fractured neck of femur does not restore preoperative hip-specific function, health-related quality of life, or level of fitness. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 34, 3081–3088 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-024-04034-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-024-04034-1