Background Hip hemiarthroplasty is a well-established treatment of displaced femoral neck fracture, although debate exists over whether cemented or uncemented fixation is superior. Uncemented prostheses have typically been used in younger, healthier patients and cemented prostheses in older patients with less-stable bone. Also, earlier research has suggested that bone cement has cytotoxic effects and may trigger cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events. Questions/Purposes The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare morbidity and mortality rates after cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. Methods Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched seven medical databases for randomized clinical trials and observational studies. We compared cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), as well as measures of postoperative pain, mortality, and complications. Data were extracted and pooled as risk ratios or standardized mean difference with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals in a meta-analysis model. Results The meta-analysis included 34 studies (12 randomized trials and 22 observational studies), with a total of 42,411 patients. In the pooled estimate, cemented hemiarthroplasty was associated with less risk of postoperative pain than uncemented hemiarthroplasty. There were no significant differences between groups regarding HHS or rates of postoperative mortality, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, acute cardiac arrhythmia, or deep venous thrombosis. Conclusions While we found that cemented hemiarthroplasty results in less postoperative pain than uncemented hemiarthroplasty in older patients with femoral neck fracture, the lack of significant differences in functional hip scores, mortality, and complications was surprising. Further high-level research is needed.

Decision making within orthopaedic centres predominantly occurs at the trauma meeting, where all decisions are made as a part of the multidisciplinary process. This is an essential handover process.Difficulties occur when teaching and detailed case discussions detract from the actual decision making process, leading to failure in documentation and implementing treatment plans.An audit was carried out in a busy district general hospital (DGH), assessing the quality of trauma meeting documentation in patient records, and assessing whether the introduction of a proforma document would improve this.Prospective clinical reviews were performed on all patients discussed in the trauma meeting over a one month period. Following the initial audit cycle a proforma was introduced, and the audit process was repeated at a two month and six month interval.The quality of the entries were assessed and compared to the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges Standards for the clinical structure and content of patient records, and The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) of England Guidelines for Clinicians on Medical Records and Notes.