Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty: technical aspects and their effects on outcome, in patients with fractures of the neck of femur

Two years outcome of cemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for fracture neck femur

“…Post operative radiographs were studied for implantation errors [9] and metaphyseal fill [10], which is summarized in Table 4. …”

“…The types of implantation errors in this study, as assessed by the methods described by Sharif and Parker [9] which included inadequate length of neck remnant (<12mm), inadequate calcar seating (>1 mm), difference in prosthetic head size compared to contra lateral head (up to 2 mm), intra operative periprosthetic fracture are summarized in Table 4. Our results compare favourably with those of Weinrauch P. where the author had studied intra-operative errors during Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty (uncemented) in 147 patients.…”

The relationship of head size versus metaphyseal fit with the Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty

“…Uncemented Austin Moore prostheses are still used across many trauma centres in Britain for displaced intra-capsular neck of femur fractures [7]; and in Australia, are used more often than any form of cemented hemiarthroplasty [7,8].…”

“…This complication is avoided by using a cemented hemiarthroplasty [3][4][5]. Sharif and Parker in a study of 243 patients with AMP found that 25.1% of patients had residual hip pain with 7% requiring revision within 1 year for aseptic loosening [8,9]. With over 50% of patients with femoral neck fractures now surviving for 5 years or longer [5], the requirement of revision surgery may be expected to increase.…”

“…Austin Moore prosthesis insertion is a technically difficult operation [4,8,11]. Accurate femoral head measurement, femoral stem preparation and sufficient metaphyseal fill are essential to achieving a good outcome [2,6,11].…”