#2 Essay Site on Sitejabber
+44 20 8638 6541
  • 中文 (中国)
  • English GB
  • English AU
  • English US
  • العربية (Arabic)

emerging paradigm for treating acetabular fractures: A systematic review of literature to evaluate functional outcome of patients

‘Fix and Replace’ – an emerging paradigm for treating acetabular fractures: A systematic review of literature to evaluate functional outcome of patients.


Acetabular fractures in the elderly population, with associated osteoporosis and general debility are a serious public health concern, these are treated by operative and non-operative measures. According to the UK’s Pelvic and Acetabular surgical community, no specific intervention has been found to guarantee positive health outcomes in the form of mobility restoration in elderly and fragile osteoporotic patients. Although interventions such as open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and total hip replacement (THR) of acetabular fractures remain technically challenging within the surgical field, there are considerable benefits when compared to traditional treatment options. The following systematic literature review is aimed at identifying how fix and replace treatment approach with acute concurrent arthroplasty or delayed arthroplasty for arthritis following acetabular ORIF is compared with conventional THR or Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). The results indicate that surgical interventions carry the highest risk procedures where patients can have significant mobility restoration if all goes well or have post-surgical complications such as site infections and other new comorbidities that could result to death. While acetabular fix and replace can be lengthier, complex with significant risks during and after surgery, the results can also be positive and enhance the quality of life of the patient.


The hip joint is a multiaxial joint that transmits the load of the upper body to the lower limbs and its normal function is essential for efficient locomotion. Damage to the articular cartilage on either side of the joint when caused by trauma or osteoarthritis can cause pain, stiffness and ultimately limit a patient’s mobility and quality of life [1].

Acetabular fractures vary in their presentation based on where they occur.. The fracture pattern relates to the mechanism of injury and the bone quality [1]. Acetabular fractures due to high energy trauma are common in young fit patients while in the elderly, these are mainly as a result of fragility within the osteoporotic population. When the acetabulum gets fractured, the femoral head may sustain significant damage or the acetabulum itself developing incongruence. Consequently, if the joint remains irregular or unstable, the resulting cartilage damage may lead to arthritis [3]. Similarly, some acetabular fractures that occur in patients with pre-existing osteoarthritis or articular damage are most likely to develop symptomatic post traumatic arthritis. Among the increasingly elderly population, acetabular fragility fractures are very common as a result of falls from a standing height [1].
Some patients with acetabular fractures on a background of pre-existing osteoarthritis or such articular damage that progression to early post traumatic arthritis is expected, may benefit from staged or single stage total hip arthroplasty alongside stabilisation of the acetabular fracture [4]. Iqbal et al. intimate that acute concurrent hip arthroplasty can be recommended where there is a pre-existing osteoarthritis, significant femoral head damage and acetabular impaction [4].
Besides falls, hip injury can be sustained with high energy trauma, for example road traffic accidents. After resuscitation of the high energy trauma patient, in the presence of a displaced acetabular fracture further imaging is obtained where possible in the form of a CT scan to define the fracture pattern and allow for surgical planning of approach and fixation +/- arthroplasty. A displaced fracture with a loss of joint congruence will most likely lead to early post traumatic osteoarthritis with pain and loss of mobility [1]. Surgical intervention is preferred where safe to do so in the appropriately consented patient. This paper will delve deeper into evaluating the

optimum treatment approach and functional outcomes of patients based on a systematic literature review.

Research Question

The outcome of this systematic review is to provide answers to the following research question:
• How does fix and replace treatment approach with acute concurrent arthroplasty or delayed arthroplasty for arthritis following acetabular ORIF compare with conventional Total Hip Replacement (THR) or Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA)?


• To investigate the optimum clinical management of acetabular fractures

• The role of THR in the management of acetabular fractures

• To evaluate the functional outcomes targeting complications and infections rate of patients with acetabular fractures having undergone hip arthroplasty.

Materials and Methods

Type of Study

Studies that were published in English of participants who had experienced acetabular fractures and undergone acute or delayed THR were reviewed. Results were then compared between each study cohort and deductions inferred. Date limits for the research were set between

2010 and 2020 to ensure coverage of new treatment approaches, experiences, and current additions to the existing body of literature.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

The study included patients (aged 55 to 96) with traumatic fractures of the acetabulum who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) post acetabular ORIF or THA. The use of THA and ORIF procedures for the treatment of post-traumatic arthritis was also considered. Additionally, information capturing the participant’s demographics and the outcomes of their THA, including acute fix and replace, delayed “fix and replace,” and THR. Other variables of interest included time from Acetabular Fracture to THA, operative characteristics, and the results following conversion arthroplasty. Besides, full-text manuscripts available in the English language published in leading peer-reviewed journals within the last 10 years.

Exclusion Criteria:

Existing systematic reviews and meta-analysis were excluded from this research as they did not provide original information on the use of ORIF, acute THA, delayed THA, and combine hip replacement procedures. Research studies on non-traumatic hip fractures (pathological or metastatic acetabular fractures) that required non-surgical intervention were not deemed appropriate for this study. Moreover, studies published in languages apart from English were also excluded for data homogeneity on acetabular fractures and total hip arthroplasty.

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

Imperatively, this systematic literature review intends to investigate acetabular fractures and the total hip replacement based on the variables of patient demographics. Additionally, the data attributes for consideration will include acetabular fractures to THA, characteristics of post- operation experiences, and the inherent outcomes related to the conversion of arthroplasty. The paper will investigate survival rates, need for revision and re-surgery, the pooled complication rate and functional scores, and other predictors of poor outcomes impact post-operative arthroplasty among patients presenting with acetabular fractures. Results will be compared based on the following categories, which are described below and include delayed THR after failed ORIF, acute THR after ORIF, and a historical cohort of THRs for osteoarthritis.

Delayed THR:

The delayed THR is regarded as a reliable procedure that is often conducted after a patient suffers symptomatic post traumatic arthritis following acetabular fractures. The term delayed implies that the process is performed at a later time when alternative acetabular fractures treatment options do not provide expected outcomes [6]. Delayed THR is therefore conducted at such a time to prevent progressive impairment of hip functionality. In some cases, THR is performed on patients who develop post-traumatic arthritis or necrosis of the femoral head despite operative or non-operative intervention that was chosen for initial treatment.

Acute THR:

The acute THR is described as the immediate total hip replacement in patients manifesting acetabular fractures [4]. Acute THR is proposed as a treatment option for patients with acetabular fractures since it potentially provides an immediate full weight-bearing and minimizes

the occurrence of delayed surgery, especially for the post-traumatic onset of osteoarthritis. Acute THR is the recommended intervention for patients with significant pre-existing osteoarthritis, or with a fracture pattern that is felt to be at high risk of early progression to osteoarthritis.

Cohort THR:

Cohort THR is known as the retrospective evaluation of past THR interventions based on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.

Data Source, Searching Strategies, and Keywords

The research incorporated the use of Pubmed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Embase, Revman, Cochrane, and Ovid to search for articles. The following lead terms were used; “fix and replace,” “acetabular,” “fracture,” “arthroplasty,” “failed acetabular fixation ORIF,” and “post- traumatic arthritis.” Other keywords included “surgical treatment,” “total hip replacement,” and “total hip arthroplasty.” The use of lead terms prevents one from interacting with numerous unnecessary sources that could be touching on the same topic but not answering the intent of the researcher.

Data Management, Reduction and Selection Process

The researcher intends to use an excel spreadsheet that will be used for data entry with the kind of treatment offered to the patients used as the primary comparator. Additionally, the excel sheet will be used to gather information on the number of patients that participated in the studies, the mean age of participants, classification of their fractures, the type of treatment accorded to them, and the mean operating time. Other parameters for consideration would be repeat surgery, emerging complications, post-operative rehabilitation, and radiographic results.

The entries would then be analyzed statistically and compared with one another to help in drawing the appropriate inferences.

Data Analysis Plan

Data collection was guided by the PRISMA model in Fig. 1 below. A total of 60 records were identified using search engines such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Ovid. A total of 60 sources that were identified using the database mentioned above, searches were screened for relevance, and 5 duplicates eliminated. The 55 remaining sources were further filtered to identify full-text articles and discard incomplete abstracts. Thus, 45 full-text articles were identified, and a further 35 removed as they did not address the research question, aims, and objectives. A total of 10 identified sources where identified, 5 qualitative and 5 quantitative approaches, as indicated in the literature matrix shown in Appendix 1 of this research.

Sources of Bias and Mitigation

The paper intends to exclude all the studies that shall have been considered as having a higher risk of attrition, which for this research is defined as greater than 30% of the patients being lost to follow up after undergoing total hip replacement or total hip arthroplasty. Similarly, all articles that are deemed to have not met all the necessary criteria for inclusion shall be excluded as well. In furtherance, conference and meeting abstracts will also be excluded. Thus, to fix the risk of bias, systematic sampling from a vast pool of sources using inclusion and exclusion criteria will help in getting a representative sample.

Details of any barriers that may be faced in implementing the study. How will they be


Conducting any review comes with its fair share of challenges and limitations, and this one is not exempted from the same. While the systematic literature review focused on relevant data sources, for instance, it became apparent that the identified case series lacked control groups from which comparisons would have been made. Through a systematic literature review where control groups are rarely included as part of the analysis, it becomes more likely to suffer from publication bias, which is mostly manifested in the studies identified. The most glaring limitation is the heterogeneity of data sources, especially when comparing age groups and treatment methods, which presents a bias that cannot be easily overcome due to the high number of studies involved [8].



When fragility acetabular fractures occur in the elderly population, surgical interventions become complex coupled with adverse consequences hence the need to have a multidisciplinary approach to minimize the inherent peri-operative risks. Although the success of every surgery is dependent on the type of intervention and patient factors such as health status, the current research aims to provide a solution on what best intervention can be adopted for the management and treatment of acetabular fractures in the elderly patients.


While there are several traditional surgical and non-surgical interventions towards the management and treatment of acetabular fractures, not all of them have the same success rates. The current paper will compare these interventions and find the most reliable one that can be adopted in the handling of the elderly patients with acetabular fractures. Thus, the paper will compare “fix and replace” approaches such as ORIF, THR, acute THR, and delayed THA.


The interventions to be compared with one another are ORIF, THR, and acute THA and delayed THA, where non ORIF groups will be compared with the ORIF group and THA compared with ORIF alone. A combination of THA and ORIF and ORIF alone will also be investigated.


The targeted outcomes will include a reduction of post-operation complications, reinfections, reconstructions, improved survival rates, and positive results on the patients’ general well-being.


Search Results

The database search will yield 60 potential articles where five qualitative and five quantitative studies are to be accessed and reviewed after meeting all the requirements for inclusion. Most importantly, all publications will be from the year 2010-2020, which will provide a comparative cohort analysis, case series (retrospective and prospective) on THR treatment. A review will be conducted on articles with cohort patients treated with acute THR, delayed THR, or ORIF in line with the research questions.

Indications and Clinical Assessment Outcomes

A study by Iqbal et al. revealed that patients achieved radiological union of fractures at an average of 21 weeks when a total hip replacement was used for initial surgical outcomes with reduced post-operative complications. When follow up was conducted, Iqbal et al. found complications in seven patients postoperatively [1]. As such, two patients were observed to have developed epidermal surgical site infections and were treated conservatively; one patient sustained a dislocation while two others underwent total hip replacement revision with two

others having Brooker I heterotopic ossification. Additionally, there were positive outcomes among the group that had a primary total hip replacement with a follow up after two years, indicating that 78% of the patients had achieved improved functionality when the Harris Hip score was used [1]. Borg et al. meanwhile, appraised the efficacy of combined hip procedure (CHP) and if they were performed separately (CHP – THA and ORIF or ORIF or THA) on 27 patients with acetabular fracture and the results compared to determine which of the two methods was more efficient. Lou et al., in agreement with Iqbal et al. contend that no patient within the CHP group required further surgical intervention as confirmed by the 100% survival rate of the THA group compared to the 28.6% among the ORIF group [2]. Borg et al. study, however, contrasts Iqbal’s finding by suggesting that the CHP group had a high mortality rate after three years of following up when it is believed it is the best approach to treating acetabular fractures [2].
The results presented by Wang et al. indicate the impact of clinical variables such as surgery duration, amount of blood loss and transfusion requirements on the surgical method used in the ORIF and the non-ORIF groups [3]. Wang et al. noted improvement in the Harris Hip Scores after surgery in both the ORIF and the Non-ORIF groups. However, of the 21 patients treated with ORIF intervention, 6 of them required reconstruction to rectify bone defects compared to 7 in the non-ORIF category [3]. Meanwhile, Luo et al. appraised the efficacy of THA by conducting a follow-up post-surgery and identified that there was no infection among the group that had THA and which showed a remarkable Harris Hip Score that improved from
48.5 to 90 points. Similarly, in cases where THA was conducted, there were minimal hip dysfunction and osteoarthritis complications post-surgery [4].

Weaver et al. have similar results as Luo et al. on the efficacy of total hip arthroplasty on displaced acetabular fractures as observed on 33 patients who were treated using ORIF with 37 getting THA and the results compared over a 22 month follow up [6]. Radiographic data from the THA and ORIF cohort was then analyzed between the two sets of patients [6]. The results compiled by Weaver et al. revealed that those who had ORIF conducted on them had the highest probability of undergoing reoperation at a 30% chance while those that had THA had only a 14% probability of undergoing reoperation [6]. Meanwhile, it was also revealed that patients who had undergone THA had improved functionality compared to the ORIF group. The treatment of acetabular fractures, according to Boelch et al., depends on the surgical approach used by the surgeon, the condition of the patient, and the underlying diseases [5].
Similarly, Boelch et al. found that THR performed exceptionally well in patients with acetabular fractures compared to those that were treated with ORIF. In furtherance, THR allowed for advanced interventions such as the use of mechanical reconstruction of acetabular fractures [5]. Lastly, Murphy contends with Borg et al. in their shared opinion that acetabular fractures should be treated with ORIF and THR because of the inherent benefits compared to traditional treatment alternatives [7].
Salama et al. tested the efficacy of simultaneous ORIF and THA as a treatment option for osteoporotic acetabular fractures and made a 22 month follow up on the operated patients. The results revealed that all the patients could walk without assistance [10]. Meanwhile, 13 of the 18 patients were found to have a 72.7% Harris Hip Score with all fractures reported to have healed, 5 patients that were reviewed had heterotopic bone formation, which did not hinder the activity of the patient. Among the interventions used, it was noted that the acetabular cups inserted

during surgery were intact except for two patients who experienced a 2mm medial migration from the acetabulum cup. Ultimately, the research revealed that adopting ORIF, together with THR, provided a good chance for the patient to recover from acetabular fractures and regain optimal functionality [10].


Iqbal et al., suggest that THR is the most appropriate method for treating acetabular fractures, especially in complex cases where the patient presented with some underlying comorbidities such as osteoarthritis [1]. Nonetheless, Iqbal et al. warn that the procedure for total hip replacement is not a guarantee that the patient will not suffer complications. Mostly, elderly populations are prone to recurrent falls, unable to follow post-operative instructions and are at a higher risk of deterioration due to other comorbidities [1]. Meanwhile, Borg et al. [2] suggest that most acetabular fractures can have better outcomes when ORIF and acute THA are used simultaneously as opposed to using each separately. Thus, Borg et al. indicate that surgeons must choose the best suitable treatment strategy for the older patients based on the risks associated with each procedure [2].
Boelch et al., suggest that the application of the ORIF procedure in treating acetabular fractures in older osteoporotic patients continue to provide inconsistent results [5]. The comparison of acute THR with delayed THR revealed that acute THR was mainly associated with positive health outcomes among patients presenting with acetabular fractures. Additionally, patients with acetabular fractures or other pathological fractures, presenting simultaneously with osteoarthritis of the hip can opt for THR [4]. Similarly, Luo et al. contend that THA can effectively treat patients with hip injuries/dislocations and fractures with reasonably good

functional outcomes without the patients suffering serious complications and risk of infection recurrence [4].
Alternatively, a study by Wang et al. on THA in post-traumatic osteoarthritis confirmed that THA was an equally reliable procedure recommended for pain alleviation and restoration of optimal functionality post hip replacement [3]. Wang et al. further suggest that when delayed THA is used for acetabular fracture treatment, the outcome may sometimes be complicated by the length of the delay, thereby making it a complicated procedure to patients who had had other surgical interventions such as ORIF [3]. According to Luo et al., the use of cementless THA has proven quite effective in the treatment of patients with a history of reinfection [4]. Furthermore, it has been noted that there are higher survival chances that can go beyond 10 years post- operation with little or no complications at all. The risk of infection in such patients undergoing cementless THA is also significantly low [4].
The use of ORIF as a treatment option before proceeding with THA procedures presented a challenge of experiencing similar problems encountered during the initial phase of surgery, as evidenced by the manifestation of proliferative scar tissues and other bone defects [10]. In furtherance, acetabular bone malformations contribute to the inferior outcomes witnessed in THA procedures when reconstructing previous hip dislocations. Delayed THA can have long- term inferior consequences as well when the acetabular fracture had underlying deficiencies such as in the presence of osteoarthritis [5].
Weaver et al. suggest that acute reconstruction of acetabular fractures using THA in elderly patients seems to be performing better when compared to ORIF. However, both have an almost similar rate of complications but with pain improving over time during recuperation [6]. Weaver et al. further agree with Boelch et al. by suggesting that most patients who undergo

ORIF tend to revert to THA within 2 years of operation. Thus, THA also provides better outcomes compared to traditional surgical interventions [6]. Meanwhile, Murphy and Carrothers suggest that the use of ORIF should only apply to younger and middle-aged populations suffering from acetabular fractures with acute THR strongly preferred for elderly patients [7].
Murphy and Carrothers, however, suggest that underlying conditions such as osteoporosis, obesity, and hip infections impact outcomes on acute THR intervention [7].
Guinta et al. also suggest that primary THA is preferable compared to ORIF, which has been shown to present poor results among older patients. Thus, when acute THA is considered, improvements become better post-operation [8]. However, McCormick et al. suggest that ORIF alone should not be discarded but rather normalize the use of ORIF and THA, although patients who are treated with acute THA also tend to survive better with indications of improved functional scores [9]. Similarly, Salama agrees with McCormick that ORIF alone is not as competent and reliable in treating acetabular fractures. Still, when THR is incorporated, the combination can work better in elderly adults compared to traditional surgical alternatives [10].


Since limitations are inevitable, the project encountered a few during this research study. One of the limitations is that most of the articles reviewed were retrospectively reviewed, which makes it have current information on advanced clinical practice. Thus, very few reviews and research were done prospectively, thereby increasing the possibility of selection bias that compromises study outcomes. The fact that the number of patients involved may not necessarily represent the actual phenomenon as it is hinting at queries for on the credibility of findings based on small sample sizes. Inherently, the other primary concern for this study, however, is that treatment for

acetabular bone fractures takes different forms, as already highlighted in the research. Hence, it is plausible to deduce that each treatment option has its unique outcomes. Therefore, having a single solution as an option can be difficult because some of the treatment options are combined to get the desired results, which may compromise the study results [5].


Acute THA has been suggested as the most effective approach in treating acetabular fractures in elderly patients with co-morbidities because of its low mortality rates and its ability to necessitate optimal functionality. Meanwhile, underlying comorbidities such as old age, chronic diseases, and re-injury have been shown to lead to poor outcomes when delayed THA is performed on elderly osteoporotic population. Nonetheless, when acute THA was performed among elderly osteoporotic patients, the outcomes report improved post-surgical mobility and a higher survival rate compared to late THA. Acute THA is a challenging procedure with significant risks to the patient, however, this must be considered in context to the risks other treatment modalities entail. ORIF is considered to be the treatment of choice for younger patients with acetabular fractures but necessitates future surgery. Alternatively, when ORIF and THA are used simultaneously, there is a better probability that acetabular fractures among the elderly can be effectively managed with positive health outcomes which include immediate weight bearing and speedy rehabilitation, short hospital stay and reduces early and late complications. However, acetabular fix and replace can be lengthier and complex with a significant risk of perioperative death in the presence of early complications. Although the evidence is limited, ‘fix and replace’ is an emerging treatment of choice for particular group of patients.


1. Iqbal F, Ullah A, Younus S, Aliuddin A, Zia OB, Khan N. Functional outcome of acute primary total hip replacement after complex acetabular fractures. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology. 2018 Dec 1;28(8):1609-16.
2. Borg T, Hernefalk B, Hailer NP. Acute total hip arthroplasty combined with internal fixation for displaced acetabular fractures in the elderly: a short-term comparison with internal fixation alone after a minimum of two years. The Bone and Joint Journal. 2019 Apr;101(4):478-83.
3. Wang T, Sun JY, Zha JJ, Wang C, Zhao XJ. Delayed total hip arthroplasty after failed treatment of acetabular fractures: an 8-to 17-year follow-up study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2018 Dec 1;13(1):208.
4. Luo, Y., Yang, Z., Yeersheng, R., Li, D. and Kang, P., 2019. Clinical outcomes and quality of life after total hip arthroplasty in adult patients with a history of infection of the hip in childhood: a mid-term follow-up study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 14(1), p.38.
5. Boelch SP, Jordan MC, Meffert RH, Jansen H. Comparison of open reduction and internal fixation and primary total hip replacement for osteoporotic acetabular fractures: a retrospective clinical study. International Orthopaedics. 2017 Sep 1;41(9):1831-7.
6. Weaver, M.J., Smith, R.M., Lhowe, D.W. and Vrahas, M.S., 2018. Does total hip arthroplasty reduce the risk of secondary surgery following the treatment of displaced acetabular fractures in the elderly compared to open reduction internal fixation? A pilot study. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 32, pp. S40-S45.7

7. Murphy CG, Carrothers AD. Fix and replace; an emerging paradigm for treating acetabular fractures. Clinical Cases in Mineral and Bone Metabolism. 2016 Sep;13(3):2
8. Giunta, J. C., Tronc, C., Kerschbaumer, G., Milaire, M., Ruatti, S., Tonetti, J., and Boudissa, M. (2019). Outcomes of acetabular fractures in the elderly: a five year retrospective study of twenty seven patients with primary total hip replacement. International Orthopaedics, 43(10), 2383-2389.
9. MacCormick, L. M., Lin, C. A., Westberg, J. R., Schmidt, A. H., and Templeman, D. C..

Acute total hip arthroplasty versus open reduction internal fixation for posterior wall acetabular fractures in middle-aged patients. Ota International. 2019; 2(1): e014.
10. Salama W, Mousa S, Khalefa A, Sleem A, Kenawey M, Ravera L, Masse A. Simultaneous open reduction and internal fixation and total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic acetabular fractures. International Orthopaedics. 2017 Jan 1;41(1):181-9.

Appendix 1 FIX AND REPLACE 21

Quantitative Literature Review Matrix
Date Methodology Analysis and
Results Conclusions Comments/Outcomes/Implic

Wang et al. (2018) Cross-sectional Cohort study design involving 33 patients from January 1997-January 2008 Surgery duration, blood loss and transfusion among the ORIF group were higher than in the non-ORIF group (p<0.05). Significant improvement in the Harris Hip Scores in both the ORIF and non-ORIF groups Delayed THA with previous acetabular fractures is a challenging procedure. Initial fracture treatment does not influence the outcome of delayed THA, and modern ceramic bearing has promising results in the long-term follow-up. The initial fracture treatment does not influence the functional results and component survival of subsequent THA at long- term follow-up. FIX AND REPLACE 22 Borg, Hernefalk and Hailer (2019) A cross-sectional study involving 27 patients with similar acetabular fractures with a mean age of 72.2 years (50-89) No patient in the CHP group required further hip surgery, giving THA a survival rate of 100% (95% confidence interval (CI) 100 to 100) after three years, compared with 28.6% hip joint survival in the ORIF group (95% CI 12.5 to 65.4; p = 0.001). The CHP confers a considerably reduced need for further surgery when compared with ORIF alone in elderly patients with complex acetabular fractures. THA has an excellent survival rate compared to hip joint survival in the ORIF group. Giunta et al. (2018) Retrospective Cohort Analysis reviewed from 2010-2015 involving 27 elderly patients operated for acetabular fractures Twenty patients (74%) were satisfied by the surgical treatment. Twenty post- operative complications (74%) were found. Two patients died during follow-up (7%). Primary THA for acetabular fracture in the elderly population might be a good therapeutic option that allows a return to the previous daily life activity. This surgery is difficult and selection of elderly patients, i.e., with acetabular fractures are expected to get a poor result with ORIF compared to THA FIX AND REPLACE 23 Lau et al. (2019) Retrospective Cohort Analysis reviewed from 2009-2016 The sample included 209,192 patients; most (69%) experienced symptoms for 1–5 years. A few patients (14%) experienced symptoms for <1 year, for longer than five years (6–10 years [11%]), or >10 years (5%). Patients with a symptom duration <1 year had better post-surgical pain and function outcomes Symptom duration before a hip replacement has become more standardized in England over time. However, increasing length of time remains a significant predictor of poorer outcomes after surgery FIX AND REPLACE 24 Mac Cormick et al. (2019) Retrospective case-controlled study Patients aged 45 to 65 years old with acetabular fractures involving the posterior wall treated with acute THA or ORIF at a level 1 trauma centre between 1996 and 2011. Patients were matched by fracture pattern and age at a 2 (ORIF):1 (acute THA) ratio. Functional outcome, complications, and reoperation rates of acute THA and ORIF were compared. Sixteen acute THA patients (average age 56.4 years) and 32 ORIF patients (average age 54.3 years) were evaluated at an average follow-up of 6.2 years (range 1–15.2). The average Oxford Hip Score in the acute THA group was 44 compared to 40 in the ORIF group (P = .075). Complication rates were similar between both the groups. Twelve hips (37%) in the ORIF group had undergone THA or been referred for THA, and two revisions (13%) had occurred in the acute THA group Both ORIF and acute THA for high-energy acetabular fractures involving the posterior wall in middle-aged patients can provide excellent results, with acute THA patients achieving improved survival of the index procedure and improved functional scores. FIX AND REPLACE 25 Qualitative Literature Review Matrix Author/ Date Methodology Analysis and Results Conclusions Comments/Outcomes/Implications FIX AND REPLACE 26 Luo et al. (2019) A retrospective study on Clinical Review of 101 patients (51 men, mean age 52.3 years undergoing cementless THA between 2008- 2015.Assessment of Clinical Outcomes No cases of infection were reported during the follow- up, and patients showed significant improvement in Harris Hip Score, for which the mean score increased from 48.5 to 90 points; the modified Merle d'Aubigne and Postel (MAP) Hip Score; the Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; the SF-12; and mean limb length discrepancy, which decreased from 3.4 to 1.1 cm Cementless THA can effectively treat patients with a quiescent period of infection of the hip of more than ten years, resulting in good functional outcomes and fewer complications. Risk of infection recurrence after THA in these patients seems extremely low. Results should be interpreted with caution given that this was a retrospective evaluation without a control group. Also, we were unable to compare outcomes between unilateral- and bilateral THA. FIX AND REPLACE 27 A prospective All patients achieved a Primary total hip Iqbal et al. (2018) observational study radiological union of replacement is a valid was conducted in the fractures at an average and reasonable one- orthopedic department duration of 21 weeks. During stage surgical the follow-up, seven treatment of complex complications were acetabular fractures observed. Two patients and in aged developed superficial individuals. However, surgical site infection, which the complications are was treated conservatively. not uncommon. One patient had a dislocation, which was reduced closely, while two patients had acetabular cup loosening, which was revised. FIX AND REPLACE 28 Retrospective Clinical Twenty-three patients were The described ORIF for acetabular fracture in older patients is Boelch et al. (2017) Study on ORIF and treated with ORIF and nine technique achieved unsatisfactory and maybe even worse for THR for osteoporotic with primary THR sufficient acetabular osteoporotic fractures. Immobilization for long- acetabular fractures (performed with an anti- component stability. term restricted weight-bearing after ORIF is protrusion cage). If the Primary THR with an hazardous. Primary THR may enable early post- posterior column was anti-protrusion cage is operative full weight-bearing unstable, THR was an advantageous combined with posterior option to ORIF and column bridge plating. should be strongly Indications for THR were considered for the presence of a osteoporotic acetabular comminuted fracture pattern, fractures approach-related risk factors for ORIF, and mobilization issues. Biomechanical reconstruction was acceptable with THR. Acetabular component loosening was observed only once. Secondary THR was indicated in 45 % of the ORIF cases. FIX AND REPLACE 29 Case series analysis of At the latest follow up, all ORIF and Combining ORIF and THR have consistently Salama et al. (2017) 18 patients (eight patients could walk simultaneous THR is a shown improvements in patient outcomes females), with an independently. Thirteen good option for the compared to acute THR/THA. average age of 66 patients (72.7 %) had treatment of certain years (range 35–81 excellent Harris hip scores types of acetabular years) who had HHS, five, patients (27.7 %) fractures, particularly displaced acetabular had good results. All in the elderly fractures fractures were healed, and population. the acetabular autologous bone grafts were well incorporated. There were no delayed unions or non- unions. Two patients (11 %) had heterotropic bone formation, which did not affect the activity of the patients. There were no signs of loosening of the acetabular cups; however, one patient had 2 mm medial migration of the cup. FIX AND REPLACE 30 Weaver et al. (2018) A retrospective review in two American trauma centres involving 33 patients was treated with ORIF and 37 were treated with THA. The mean follow-up was 22 months (range 6–89 months). Patients were interviewed, and radiographs were examined. Those treated with ORIF had a higher rate of reoperation (10/33, 30%) compared with those treated with THA (5/37, 14%); however, this was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). Patients reported better bodily pain scores as measured by SF-36 (48 vs 39, P = 0.04), and a trend toward improved function as measured by patient-reported Harris Hip Scores (82 vs 63, P = 0.06) in those treated with THA compared with ORIF. Acute reconstruction of acetabular fractures with THA in the geriatric population seems to compare favourably with ORIF, with a similar rate of complications, but with improved pain scores. Besides, there was a high rate of conversion to THA within two years of injury when patients were treated with ORIF. Acute THA as primary treatment in this patient population merits further, more controlled, comparative study. Treatment of acetabular fractures by reconstruction with THA presents several potential challenges, including the risk of loosening of the femoral or acetabular components and the possibility of dislocation of the hip prosthesis. FIX AND REPLACE 31

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
The Uni Tutor Clients