No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) system (Smith and Nephew) was developed as an alternative to conventional total joint replacement for younger, more active patients. Among other complications exists the risk for femoral component failure. The only marketed revision option for such a complication involves exchange of all components for a total replacement arthroplasty. This presents as a considerable and potentially unnecessary operative burden where revision of only the femoral prosthesis would suffice. We have analysed revision options for BHR in the context of periprosthetic femoral fractures with a stable acetabular component. Methods: Technical details of dual mobility hip systems available in Australia were collated and analysed to assess for potential 'off label' use with an existing BHR acetabular component. These data were then compared with the custom-made Smith and Nephew dual mobility implant with respect to clearance and sizing. Results: Two dual mobility articulation modalities from two companies were identified as appropriate for potential usage with four products analysed in detail. These two demonstrated acceptable sizing and clearance measurements. Conclusion: Comparison between readily available dual mobility prostheses with custom-made implants showed off label dual mobility prosthetic use to be a viable alternative for femoral-only revisions with in situ BHR. Single component revision has several advantages which include: a less complex surgical procedure, shorter operative time, decreased blood loss and the expectation of resultant lower morbidity. Furthermore, this less complex revision surgery should give comparable results to that of primary total hip arthroplasty.

A short cut review was carried out to establish whether negative dipstick urine analysis is sensitive enough to rule out urinary tract infection (UTI) in adults with urinary symptoms. Altogether 75 papers were found using the reported search, of which two presented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these best papers are tabulated. A clinical bottom line is stated.