title: Patient selection criteria for primary total hip Arthroplasty in displaced intracapsular hip fractures: Are they appropriate?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This study aims to determine, by outcome analysis, the appropriateness of current criteria employed to select patients for total hip arthroplasty (THA) as the primary treatment for displaced intracapsular hip fracture (DICHF). This study is intended to inform prospective randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of THA as a primary treatment.
  
  
  METHODS
  Contemporary THA eligibility criteria were derived from recent publications relating to pre-fracture residence, mobility and independence. Outcome data were analysed for 96 patients (19% of 506 consecutive patients with DICHF between March 2003 and February 2005) who fulfilled those criteria. The variables analysed included age, gender, co-existing injuries, co-morbidities, social circumstances, mobility, independence, delay to surgery, readmission and death. The 96 patients included in the study were followed for 3 years. The primary outcome was the combined achievement of home or warden-assisted accommodation at 3 months, no patient readmission within 6 weeks of discharge and survival to 1 year. Secondary outcome was survival to 3 years.
  
  
  RESULTS
  At 3 months, 86 patients (90%) had returned home, three (3.1%) required nursing or residential home placement, four (4.2%) were still resident in a community hospital and three (3.1%) had died. A total of ten patients failed to return to their own home. Eight patients (8.3%) were readmitted within 6 weeks. At 1 year, eight patients (8.3%) had died; by 3 years, the mortality rate was 25%. Patients not achieving return to home were older (84.8 years vs. 79.7 years, p = 0.19), prior to fracture weremore likely to use a walking aid (odds ratio [OR] 2.35) or required home support (OR 1.74). The number of co-morbidities was not an association. Backward selection applied to the above data produced an OR of 1.12 (confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.21) for age as a variable in patients successfully discharged home, so that for each increase in age by year, the odds of home not being the final destination increased by 12%. These factors were also reflected in the patients requiring readmission within 6 weeks from discharge.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  If maintaining a high level of activity and independence is the expectation in patients considered for THA for DICHFs, then current selection criteria appear to be appropriate in identifying those capable of returning home, remaining independent and surviving to 1 year compared to the whole DICHF population. With a 75% 3-year survival, the postulated benefit of THA will not be realised in many patients and this needs to be considered. Cost-effectiveness trials are required before broad practice change occurs.
authors.affiliation: The John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: Muhammad E A
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Khan
authors.affiliation: The John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: Sanju
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Mathew
authors.affiliation: The John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: Syazrah
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Salam
authors.affiliation: Kadoorie Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: Sally
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Lambert
authors.affiliation: Geriatric Medicine, The John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
authors.forename: James D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Price
authors.affiliation: Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery, The Kadoorie Centre for Critical Care Research and Education, University of Oxford, The John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. keith.willett@ndos.ox.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Keith M
authors.initials: KM
authors.lastname: Willett
keywords: Arthroplasty; Hip fracture; Intracapsular; Outcome; Subcapital
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Jul;(436):208-15
references.pmid: 15995443
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Feb;88(2):249-60
references.pmid: 16452734
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Dec;88(12):2583-9
references.pmid: 17142407
references.citation: Osteoporos Int. 2004 Feb;15(2):87-94
references.pmid: 14605799
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 2005 Oct;9(41):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-65
references.pmid: 16202351
references.citation: Age Ageing. 1972 Nov;1(4):233-8
references.pmid: 4669880
references.citation: Injury. 2000 Dec;31(10):793-7
references.pmid: 11154750
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Feb;89(2):160-5
references.pmid: 17322427
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Aug;(425):64-71
references.pmid: 15292789
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Aug;87(8):1680-8
references.pmid: 16085605
references.citation: Acta Orthop. 2007 Aug;78(4):491-7
references.pmid: 17966003
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2003 Dec;12(8):1069-79
references.pmid: 14651424
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Sep;(414):250-8
references.pmid: 12966300
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 2004 Oct;19(7):825-8
references.pmid: 15483796
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Mar;84(2):183-8
references.pmid: 11922358
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Sep;85-A(9):1673-81
references.pmid: 12954824
references.citation: BMJ. 2005 Dec 10;331(7529):1374
references.pmid: 16299013
references.citation: Acta Orthop Belg. 2008 Feb;74(1):54-8
references.pmid: 18411602