Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 5;54(6):863-867.
doi: 10.1007/s43465-020-00203-6. eCollection 2020 Nov.

How Accurate is the Use of Contralateral Implant Size as a Template in Bilateral Hemiarthroplasty?

Affiliations

How Accurate is the Use of Contralateral Implant Size as a Template in Bilateral Hemiarthroplasty?

Raghavendra Marappa-Ganeshan et al. Indian J Orthop. .

Abstract

Purpose: Accurately predicting implant size for hemiarthroplasties offers an important contribution to theatre efficiency and patients' intraoperative care. However, pre-operative sizing using templating of implants in hip fracture patients requiring a hemiarthroplasty is often difficult due to non-standard radiographs, absence of a calibration marker, poor marker placement, variable patient position, and in many institutions a lack of templating facilities. In patients who have previously undergone a hemiarthroplasty on the contralateral side, surgeons can use the contralateral implant size for pre-operative planning purposes. However, the accuracy of doing this has not previously been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of using an in situ contralateral implant as a predictor of implant size on the contralateral side.

Methods: A retrospective review of our local neck of femur fracture (NOF) database was undertaken to identify patients who had bilateral hip hemiarthroplasty. Operative records were reviewed to establish the size of prostheses used at operation. Correlation, agreement, and reliability analysis were performed using the least squares, Bland-Altman plot, and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) methods, respectively.

Results: Operative records were identified for 45 patients who had bilateral hemiarthroplasties. There was a difference in implant size used in 58% of cases. Of these 77% required a larger implant on the right. Implant sizes were within 1 mm of the contralateral side in 78% and within 2 mm in 91% of patients. However, in 9% of patients, there was a discrepancy greater than 2 mm with some cases having up to 6 mm discrepancy. Correlation coefficient was 0.83 and the ICC 0.90.

Conclusions: The findings in this study indicated that using the size of a contralateral implant can be used as a reliable indicator of head size in cases of bilateral hemiarthroplasty. However, the surgeon should remain cautious as there is a one in ten chance of there being a 3 mm or more difference in implant size.

Keywords: Bilateral; Fracture; Head size; Hemiarthroplasty; Neck of femur; Templating.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interestThe authors report no conflict of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. Professor Pandit is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. Mr. van Duren is a BRC-NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BRC, NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Scatter plot showing correlation between implant head sizes of right and left hip hemiarthroplasties. The dotted line is a trend line (least squares line) through the observed values, and the correlation coefficient is 0.83. The solid black line represents a perfect correlation between head sizes
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Bland–Altman type plot showing the difference in head size between contralateral implants (right–left) plotted against average head size (right and left averaged)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Dot plot showing left and right hemiarthroplasty sizes plotted per patient illustrating a high intra-class correlation

References

    1. National Hip Fracture Database Annual Report. (2019). https://www.nhfd.co.uk/.
    1. Crosswell S, Akehurst H, Ramiah R, Navadgi B. Preoperative sizing of hip hemiarthroplasties to accurately estimate head size from non-standardised pelvic radiographs: can it be done? Injury. 2019;50(11):2030–2033. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.08.025. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Green RN, Rushton PR, Kramer D, Inman D, Partington PF. Pre-operative templating for trauma hemiarthroplasty (Thompson’s) Journal of Orthopaedics. 2015;12(4):248–252. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2015.05.005. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Noon A, Hockings M, Warner J. Dislocated Thompson hemiarthroplasty the management of the recurrent dislocator. Injury. 2005;36:618–621. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2004.10.021. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Colombi A, Schena D, Castelli CC. Total hip arthroplasty planning. EFORT Open Reviews. 2019;4(11):626–632. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180075. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources