Aims. Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around the knee are challenging injuries. This study aims to describe the characteristics of knee PPFs and the impact of patient demographics, fracture types, and management modalities on in-hospital mortality. Methods. Using a multicentre study design, independent of registry data, we included adult patients sustaining a PPF around a knee arthroplasty between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Univariate, then multivariable, logistic regression analyses were performed to study the impact of patient, fracture, and treatment on mortality. Results. Out of a total of 1,667 patients in the PPF study database, 420 patients were included. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.4%. Multivariable analyses suggested that American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, history of peripheral vascular disease (PVD), history of rheumatic disease, fracture around a loose implant, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) during hospital stay were each independently associated with mortality. Each point increase in ASA grade independently correlated with a four-fold greater mortality risk (odds ratio (OR) 4.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 14.06); p = 0.026). Patients with PVD have a nine-fold increase in mortality risk (OR 9.1 (95% CI 1.25 to 66.47); p = 0.030) and patients with rheumatic disease have a 6.8-fold increase in mortality risk (OR 6.8 (95% CI 1.32 to 34.68); p = 0.022). Patients with a fracture around a loose implant (Unified Classification System (UCS) B2) have a 20-fold increase in mortality, compared to UCS A1 (OR 20.9 (95% CI 1.61 to 271.38); p = 0.020). Mode of management was not a significant predictor of mortality. Patients managed with revision arthroplasty had a significantly longer length of stay (median 16 days; p = 0.029) and higher rates of return to theatre, compared to patients treated nonoperatively or with fixation. Conclusion. The mortality rate in PPFs around the knee is similar to that for native distal femur and neck of femur fragility fractures. Patients with certain modifiable risk factors should be optimized. A national PPF database and standardized management guidelines are currently required to understand these complex injuries and to improve patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):158–165

Aims. Hip fracture commonly affects the frailest patients, of whom many are care-dependent, with a disproportionate risk of contracting COVID-19. We examined the impact of COVID-19 infection on hip fracture mortality in England. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of patients with hip fracture recorded in the National Hip Fracture Database between 1 February 2019 and 31 October 2020 in England. Data were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics to quantify patient characteristics and comorbidities, Office for National Statistics mortality data, and Public Health England’s SARS-CoV-2 testing results. Multivariable Cox regression examined determinants of 90-day mortality. Excess mortality attributable to COVID-19 was quantified using Quasi-Poisson models. Results. Analysis of 102,900 hip fractures (42,630 occurring during the pandemic) revealed that among those with COVID-19 infection at presentation (n = 1,120) there was a doubling of 90-day mortality; hazard ratio (HR) 2.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.89 to 2.31), while the HR for infections arising between eight and 30 days after presentation (n = 1,644) the figure was greater at 2.51 (95% CI 2.31 to 2.73). Malnutrition (1.45 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.77)) and nonoperative treatment (2.94 (95% CI 2.18 to 3.95)) were the only modifiable risk factors for death in COVID-19-positive patients. Patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 more than two weeks prior to hip fracture initially had better survival compared to those who contracted COVID-19 around the time of their hip fracture; however, survival rapidly declined and by 365 days the combination of hip fracture and COVID-19 infection was associated with a 50% mortality rate. Between 1 January and 30 June 2020, 1,273 (99.7% CI 1,077 to 1,465) excess deaths occurred within 90 days of hip fracture, representing an excess mortality of 23% (99.7% CI 20% to 26%), with most deaths occurring within 30 days. Conclusion. COVID-19 infection more than doubles the rate of early hip fracture mortality. Those contracting infection between 8 and 30 days after initial presentation are at even higher mortality risk, signalling the potential for targeted interventions during this period to improve survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1156–1167

Aims. This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. Methods. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA. Results. The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA. Conclusion. The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the ‘real world’. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):565–572

Aims. Traumatic central cord syndrome (CCS) typically follows a hyperextension injury and results in motor impairment affecting the upper limbs more than the lower, with occasional sensory impairment and urinary retention. Current evidence on mortality and long-term outcomes is limited. The primary aim of this study was to assess the five-year mortality of CCS, and to determine any difference in mortality between management groups or age. Methods. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a traumatic CCS between January 2012 and December 2017 in Wales were identified. Patient demographics and data about injury, management, and outcome were collected. Statistical analysis was performed to assess mortality and between-group differences. Results. A total of 65 patients were identified (66.2% male (n = 43), mean age 63.9 years (SD 15.9)). At a minimum of five years’ follow-up, 32.3% of CCS patients (n = 21) had died, of whom six (9.2%) had died within 31 days of their injury. Overall, 69.2% of patients (n = 45) had been managed conservatively. There was no significant difference in age between conservatively and surgically managed patients (p = 0.062). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant difference in mortality between patients managed conservatively and those managed surgically (p = 0.819). However, there was a significant difference in mortality between the different age groups (< 50 years vs 50 to 70 years vs > 70 years; p = 0.001). At five years’ follow-up, 55.6% of the patient group aged > 70 years at time of injury had died (n = 15). Respiratory failure was the most common cause of death (n = 9; 42.9%). Conclusion. Almost one-third of patients with a traumatic CCS in Wales had died within five years of their injury. The type of management did not significantly affect mortality but their age at the time of injury did. Further work to assess the long-term functional outcomes of surviving patients is needed to generate more reliable prognostic information. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):920–927

Aims. This study aimed to identify risk factors (patient, healthcare system, and socioeconomic) for mortality after hip fractures and estimate their relative importance. Further, we aimed to elucidate mortality and survival patterns following fractures and the duration of excess mortality. Methods. Data on 37,394 hip fractures in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from January 2014 to December 2018 were linked to data from the Norwegian Patient Registry, Statistics Norway, and characteristics of acute care hospitals. Cox regression analysis was performed to estimate risk factors associated with mortality. The Wald statistic was used to estimate and illustrate relative importance of risk factors, which were categorized in modifiable (healthcare-related) and non-modifiable (patient-related and socioeconomic). We calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) comparing deaths among hip fracture patients to expected deaths in a standardized reference population. Results. Mean age was 80.2 years (SD 11.4) and 67.5% (n = 25,251) were female. Patient factors (male sex, increasing comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade and Charlson Comorbidity Index)), socioeconomic factors (low income, low education level, living in a healthcare facility), and healthcare factors (hip fracture volume, availability of orthogeriatric services) were associated with increased mortality. Non-modifiable risk factors were more strongly associated with mortality than modifiable risk factors. The SMR analysis suggested that cumulative excess mortality among hip fracture patients was 16% in the first year and 41% at six years. SMR was 2.48 for the six-year observation period, most pronounced in the first year, and fell from 10.92 in the first month to 3.53 after 12 months and 2.48 after six years. Substantial differences in median survival time were found, particularly for patient-related factors. Conclusion. Socioeconomic, patient-, and healthcare-related factors all contributed to excess mortality, and non-modifiable factors had stronger association than modifiable ones. Hip fractures contributed to substantial excess mortality. Apparently small survival differences translate into substantial disparity in median survival time in this elderly population. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):884–893

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and fracture-related infections (FRIs) are associated with a significant risk of adverse events. However, there is a paucity of data on cardiac complications following revision surgery for PJI and FRI and how they impact overall mortality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and mortality in this patient cohort. Methods. We prospectively included consecutive patients at high cardiovascular risk (defined as age ≥ 45 years with pre-existing coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular artery disease, or any patient aged ≥ 65 years, plus a postoperative hospital stay of > 24 hours) undergoing septic or aseptic major orthopaedic surgery between July 2014 and October 2016. All patients received a systematic screening to reliably detect PMI, using serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. All-cause mortality was assessed at one year. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to compare incidence of PMI and mortality between patients undergoing septic revision surgery for PJI or FRI, and patients receiving aseptic major bone and joint surgery. Results. In total, 911 consecutive patients were included. The overall perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) rate was 15.4% (n = 140). Septic revision surgery for PJI was associated with a significantly higher PMI rate (43.8% (14/32) vs 14.5% (57/393); p = 0.001) and one-year mortality rate (18.6% (6/32) vs 7.4% (29/393); p = 0.038) compared to aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty. The association with PMI persisted in multivariable analysis with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 10.7; p < 0.001), but was not statistically significant for one-year mortality (aOR 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.4; p = 0.240). PMI rate (15.2% (5/33) vs 14.1% (64/453)) and one-year mortality (15.2% (5/33) vs 9.1% (41/453)) after FRI revision surgery were comparable to aseptic long-bone fracture surgery. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI were at a risk of PMI and death compared to those undergoing aseptic arthroplasty surgery. Screening for PMI and treatment in specialized multidisciplinary units should be considered in major bone and joint infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):696–702

Aims. Hip fractures are some of the most common fractures encountered in orthopaedic practice. We aimed to identify whether perioperative hypotension is a predictor of 30-day mortality, and to stratify patient groups that would benefit from closer monitoring and early intervention. While there is literature on intraoperative blood pressure, there are limited studies examining pre- and postoperative blood pressure. Methods. We conducted a prospective observational cohort study over a one-year period from December 2021 to December 2022. Patient demographic details, biochemical results, and haemodynamic observations were taken from electronic medical records. Statistical analysis was conducted with the Cox proportional hazards model, and the effects of independent variables estimated with the Wald statistic. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were estimated with the log-rank test. Results. A total of 528 patients were identified as suitable for inclusion. On multivariate analysis, postoperative hypotension of a systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 mmHg two to 24 hours after surgery showed an increased hazard ratio (HR) for 30-day mortality (HR 4.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3 to 8.9); p < 0.001) and was an independent risk factor accounting for sex (HR 2.7 (95% CI 1.4 to 5.2); p = 0.003), age (HR 1.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.1); p = 0.016), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (HR 2.7 (95% CI 1.5 to 4.6); p < 0.001), time to theatre > 24 hours (HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.2); p = 0.025), and preoperative anaemia (HR 2.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 5.2); p = 0.043). A preoperative SBP of < 120 mmHg was close to achieving significance (HR 1.9 (95% CI 0.99 to 3.6); p = 0.052). Conclusion. Our study is the first to demonstrate that postoperative hypotension within the first 24 hours is an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality after hip fracture surgery. Clinicians should recognize patients who have a SBP of < 90 mmHg in the early postoperative period, and be aware of the increased mortality risk in this specific cohort who may benefit from a closer level of monitoring and early intervention. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):189–194

Aims. To determine mortality risk after first revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF), and to compare this to mortality risk after primary and first revision THA for other common indications. Methods. The study cohort consisted of THAs recorded in the National Joint Registry between 2003 and 2015, linked to national mortality data. First revision THAs for PFF, infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening were identified. We used a flexible parametric model to estimate the cumulative incidence function of death at 90 days, one year, and five years following first revision THA and primary THA, in the presence of further revision as a competing risk. Analysis covariates were age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Results. A total of 675,078 primary and 74,223 first revision THAs were included (of which 6,131 were performed for PFF). Following revision for PFF, mortality ranged from 9% at 90 days, 21% at one year, and 60% at five years in the highest risk group (males, ≥ 75 years, ASA ≥ 3) to 0.6%, 1.4%, and 5.5%, respectively, for the lowest risk group (females, < 75 years, ASA ≤ 2). Mortality was greater in all groups following first revision THA for PFF than for primary THA. Compared to mortality risk after first revision THA for infection, dislocation, or aseptic loosening, revision for PFF was associated with higher five-year mortality in all groups except males < 75 years with an ASA ≤ 2. Conclusion. Mortality risk after revision THA for PFF is high, reaching 60% at five years in the highest risk patient group. In comparison to other common indications for revision, PFF demonstrated the highest overall risk of mortality at five years. These estimates can be used in the surgical decision-making process and when counselling patients and carers regarding surgical risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1670–1674

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term mortality rate, and to identify factors associated with this, following primary and revision knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. Data from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project (1998 to 2019) were retrospectively analyzed. Patient mortality data were linked from the National Records of Scotland. Analyses were performed separately for the primary and revised KA cohorts. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for the population at risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards were used to identify predictors and estimate relative mortality risks. Results. At a median 7.4 years (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0 to 11.6) follow-up, 27.8% of primary (n = 27,474/98,778) and 31.3% of revision (n = 2,611/8,343) KA patients had died. Both primary and revision cohorts had lower mortality rates than the general population (SMR 0.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.74); p < 0.001; SMR 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.86); p < 0.001, respectively), which persisted for 12 and eighteight years after surgery, respectively. Factors associated with increased risk of mortality after primary KA included male sex (hazard ratio (HR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.45)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.50)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.79 (95% CI 1.68 to 1.90)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.59 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.68)), and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) requiring revision (HR 1.92 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.36)) when adjusting for age. Similarly, male sex (HR 1.36 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.49)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.31 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.52)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.37)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.33 to 2.01)), and revision for PJI (HR 1.35 (95% 1.18 to 1.55)) were independently associated with an increased risk of mortality following revision KA when adjusting for age. Conclusion. The SMR of patients undergoing primary and revision KA was lower than that of the general population and remained so for several years post-surgery. However, approximately one in four patients undergoing primary and one in three patients undergoing revision KA died within tenten years of surgery. Several patient and surgical factors, including PJI, were associated with the risk of mortality within ten years of primary and revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):45–52

Aims. Despite higher rates of revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA) being reported for uncemented stems in patients aged > 75 years, they are frequently used in this age group. Increased mortality after cemented fixation is often used as a justification, but recent data do not confirm this association. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the design of the stem and the type of fixation on the rate of revision and immediate postoperative mortality, focusing on the age and sex of the patients. Methods. A total of 333,144 patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip who underwent elective THA between November 2012 and September 2022, using uncemented acetabular components without reconstruction shells, from the German arthroplasty registry were included in the study. The revision rates three years postoperatively for four types of stem (uncemented, uncemented with collar, uncemented short, and cemented) were compared within four age groups: < 60 years (Young), between 61 and 70 years (Mid-I), between 71 and 80 years (Mid-II), and aged > 80 years (Old). A noninferiority analysis was performed on the most frequently used designs of stem. Results. The design of the stem was found to have no significant influence on the rate of revision for either sex in the Young group. Uncemented collared stems had a significantly lower rate of revision compared with the other types of stem for females in the Mid-I group. There was a significantly higher rate of revision for uncemented stems in females in the Mid-II group compared with all other types of stem, while in males the rate for uncemented stems was only significantly higher than the rate for cemented stems. Cemented stems had a significantly lower revision rate compared with uncemented and short stems for both sexes in the Old cohort, as did females with collared stems. The rate of immediate postoperative mortality was similar for all types of stem in the Old age group, as were the American Society of Anesthesiologists grades. Conclusion. In patients aged > 80 years, uncemented and short stems had significantly higher revision rates compared with cemented and collared stems, especially in females. The design of the stem and type of fixation have to be analyzed in more detail than only considering cemented and uncemented fixation, in order to further improve the success of THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3 Supple A):130–136

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the association of mortality and reoperation when comparing cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) in hip fracture patients aged over 65 years. Methods. This was a population-based cohort study on hip fracture patients using prospectively gathered data from several national registries in Denmark from 2004 to 2015 with up to five years follow-up. The primary outcome was mortality and the secondary outcome was reoperation. Hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality and subdistributional hazard ratios (sHRs) for reoperations are shown with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. A total of 17,671 patients with primary HA were identified (9,484 uncemented and 8,187 cemented HAs). Compared to uncemented HA, surgery with cemented HA was associated with an absolute risk difference of 0.4% for mortality within the period zero to one day after surgery and an adjusted HR of 1.70 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.38). After seven days, there was no longer any association, with an adjusted HR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.28). This continued until five years after surgery with a HR of 1.01 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.06). There was a higher proportion of reoperations due to any reason after five years in the uncemented group with 10.2% compared to the cemented group with 6.1%. This yielded an adjusted sHR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.75) and difference continued up until five years after the surgery, demonstrating a sHR of 0.70 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.83). Conclusion. In a non-selected cohort of hip fracture patients, surgery with cemented HA was associated with a higher relative mortality during the first postoperative day compared to surgery with uncemented HA, but there was no difference after seven days up until five years after. In contrast, surgery with cemented HA was associated with lower risk of reoperation up to five years postoperatively compared with surgery with uncemented HA. There was a higher relative mortality on the first postoperative day for cemented HA versus uncemented HA. There was no difference in mortality after seven days up until five years after surgery. There were 6.1% reoperations for cemented HA compared to 10.2% for uncemented HA after five years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):127–133

Aims. In cases of severe periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee, salvage procedures such as knee arthrodesis (KA) or above-knee amputation (AKA) must be considered. As both treatments result in limitations in quality of life (QoL), we aimed to compare outcomes and factors influencing complication rates, mortality, and mobility. Methods. Patients with PJI of the knee and subsequent KA or AKA between June 2011 and May 2021 were included. Demographic data, comorbidities, and patient history were analyzed. Functional outcomes and QoL were prospectively assessed in both groups with additional treatment-specific scores after AKA. Outcomes, complications, and mortality were evaluated. Results. A total of 98 patients were included, 52 treated with arthrodesis and 47 with AKA. The mean number of revision surgeries between primary arthroplasty and arthrodesis or AKA was 7.85 (SD 5.39). Mean follow-up was 77.7 months (SD 30.9), with a minimum follow-up of two years. Complications requiring further revision surgery occurred in 11.5% of patients after arthrodesis and in 37.0% of AKA patients. Positive intraoperative tissue cultures obtained during AKA was significantly associated with the risk of further surgical revision. Two-year mortality rate of arthrodesis was significantly lower compared to AKA (3.8% vs 28.3%), with age as an independent risk factor in the AKA group. Functional outcomes and QoL were better after arthrodesis compared to AKA. Neuropathic pain was reported by 19 patients after AKA, and only 45.7% of patients were fitted or were intended to be fitted with a prosthesis. One-year infection-free survival after arthrodesis was 88.5%, compared to 78.5% after AKA. Conclusion. Above-knee amputation in PJI results in high complication and mortality rates and poorer functional outcome compared to arthrodesis. Mortality rates after AKA depend on patient age and mobility, with most patients not able to be fitted with a prosthesis. Therefore, arthrodesis should be preferred whenever possible if salvage procedures are indicated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):669–679

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of time to surgical intervention from admission on mortality and morbidity for patients with hip fractures. Methods. MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception to June 2020. Reference lists were manually assessed to identify additional papers. Primary comparative research studies that recruited patients aged over 60 years, with non-pathological primary proximal femoral fractures that were treated surgically, were included. Studies that did not include a group operated on within 24 hours or which reported time to surgery in calendar days were excluded. Two investigators extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. The pre-defined primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality at other time points. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were aggregated and were grouped by study-level characteristics. Results. This review included 46 studies (January 1991 to June 2020), comprising 521,857 hip fractures with 64,047 postoperative deaths. No randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. In a pooled analysis of 15 studies, RR of mortality at 30 days comparing time to surgery < 24 hours with > 24 hours was 0.86 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.91; I. 2. = 69%; 95% CI 50% to 81%; p-value for heterogeneity < 0.001). The association was stronger in observational studies that did not adjust for confounders than in those that adjusted for multiple covariates. In a pooled analysis of six studies, the RR of mortality at 30 days comparing time to surgery < 24 hours with 24 to 36 hours was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.93; I. 2. = 65%; 95% CI 16% to 85%; p-value for heterogeneity = 0.014). Conclusion. This meta-analysis indicates reduced mortality for patients operated within 24 hours compared with those operated on beyond 24 hours or within 24 to 36 hours. Where resources allow and there is no specific reversible contraindication to early surgery, we recommend that hip fractures should be surgically treated within 24 hours. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1176–1186

Aims. There is an increasing demand for hip arthroplasty in China. We aimed to describe trends in in-hospital mortality after this procedure in China and to examine the potential risk factors. Patients and Methods. We included 210 450 patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty registered in the Hospital Quality Monitoring System in China between 2013 and 2016. In-hospital mortality after hip arthroplasty and its relation to potential risk factors were assessed using multivariable Poisson regression. Results. During the study period, 626 inpatient deaths occurred within 30 days after hip arthroplasty. Mortality decreased from 2.9% in 2013 to 2.6% in 2016 (p for trend = 0.02). Compared with their counterparts, old age, male sex, and divorced or widowed patients had a higher rate of mortality (all p < 0.05). Risk ratio (RR) for mortality after arthroplasty for fracture was two-fold higher (RR 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5 to 2.6) than that for chronic disease. RRs for mortality were 3.3 (95% CI 2.7 to 3.9) and 8.2 (95% CI 6.5 to 10.4) for patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 1 to 2 and CCI ≥ 3, respectively, compared with patients with CCI of 0. The rate of mortality varied according to geographical region, the lowest being in the East region (1.8%), followed by Beijing (2.1%), the North (2.9%), South-West (3.6%), South-Central (3.8%), North-East (4.1%), and North-West (5.2%) regions. Conclusion. While in-hospital mortality after hip arthroplasty in China appears low and declined during the study period, discrepancies in mortality after this procedure exist according to sociodemographic factors. Healthcare resources should be allocated more to underdeveloped regions to further reduce mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1209–1217

Aims. This study aimed to compare mortality in trochanteric AO/OTA A1 and A2 fractures treated with an intramedullary nail (IMN) or sliding hip screw (SHS). The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with secondary endpoints at 0 to 1, 2 to 7, 8 to 30, 90, and 365 days. Methods. We analyzed data from 26,393 patients with trochanteric AO/OTA A1 and A2 fractures treated with IMNs (n = 9,095) or SHSs (n = 17,298) in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (January 2008 to December 2020). Exclusions were made for patients aged < 60 years, pathological fractures, pre-2008 operations, contralateral hip fractures, fractures other than trochanteric A1/A2, and treatments other than IMNs or SHSs. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses adjusted for type of fracture, age, sex, cognitive impairment, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and time period were conducted, along with calculations for number needed to harm (NNH). Results. In unadjusted analyses, there was no significant difference between IMN and SHS patient survival at 30 days (91.8% vs 91.1%; p = 0.083) or 90 days (85.4% vs 84.5%; p = 0.065), but higher one-year survival for IMNs (74.5% vs 73.3%; p = 0.031) compared with SHSs. After adjustments, no significant difference in 30-day mortality was found (hazard rate ratio (HRR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.02(; p = 0.146). IMNs exhibited higher mortality at 0 to 1 days (HRR 1.63 (95% CI 1.13 to 2.34); p = 0.009) compared with SHSs, with a NNH of 556, but lower mortality at 8 to 30 days (HRR 0.89 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.00); p = 0.043). No differences were observed in mortality at 2 to 7 days (HRR 0.94 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.11); p = 0.434), 90 days (HRR 0.95 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.02); p = 0.177), or 365 days (HRR 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.02); p = 0.192). Conclusion. This study found no difference in 30-day mortality between IMNs and SHSs. However, IMNs were associated with a higher mortality at 0 to 1 days and a marginally lower mortality at 8 to 30 days compared with SHSs. The observed differences in mortality were small and should probably not guide choice of treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):603–612

Aims. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients continue to require urgent surgery for hip fractures. However, the impact of COVID-19 on perioperative outcomes in these high-risk patients remains unknown. The objectives of this study were to establish the effects of COVID-19 on perioperative morbidity and mortality, and determine any risk factors for increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing hip fracture surgery. Methods. This multicentre cohort study included 340 COVID-19-negative patients versus 82 COVID-19-positive patients undergoing surgical treatment for hip fractures across nine NHS hospitals in Greater London, UK. Patients in both treatment groups were comparable for age, sex, body mass index, fracture configuration, and type of surgery performed. Predefined perioperative outcomes were recorded within a 30-day postoperative period. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to identify risk factors associated with increased risk of mortality. Results. COVID-19-positive patients had increased postoperative mortality rates (30.5% (25/82) vs 10.3% (35/340) respectively, p < 0.001) compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Risk factors for increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery included positive smoking status (hazard ratio (HR) 15.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.55 to 52.2; p < 0.001) and greater than three comorbidities (HR 13.5 (95% CI 2.82 to 66.0, p < 0.001). COVID-19-positive patients had increased risk of postoperative complications (89.0% (73/82) vs 35.0% (119/340) respectively; p < 0.001), more critical care unit admissions (61.0% (50/82) vs 18.2% (62/340) respectively; p < 0.001), and increased length of hospital stay (mean 13.8 days (SD 4.6) vs 6.7 days (SD 2.5) respectively; p < 0.001), compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Conclusion. Hip fracture surgery in COVID-19-positive patients was associated with increased length of hospital stay, more admissions to the critical care unit, higher risk of perioperative complications, and increased mortality rates compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Risk factors for increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery included positive smoking status and multiple (greater than three) comorbidities. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1136–1145

Aims. A recent report from France suggested an association between the use of cobalt-chrome (CoCr) femoral heads in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and an increased risk of dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure. CoCr is a commonly used material in orthopaedic implants. If the reported association is causal, the consequences would be significant given the millions of joint arthroplasties and other orthopaedic procedures in which CoCr is used annually. We examined whether CoCr-containing THAs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, heart outcomes, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders in a large national database. Methods. Data from the National Joint Registry was linked to NHS English hospital inpatient episodes for 374,359 primary THAs with up to 14.5 years' follow-up. We excluded any patients with bilateral THAs, knee arthroplasties, indications other than osteoarthritis, aged under 55 years, and diagnosis of one or more outcome of interest before THA. Implants were grouped as either containing CoCr or not containing CoCr. The association between implant construct and the risk of all-cause mortality and incident heart failure, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders was examined. Results. There were 158,677 individuals (42.4%) with an implant containing CoCr. There were 47,963 deaths, 27,332 heart outcomes, 35,720 cancers, and 22,025 neurodegenerative disorders. There was no evidence of an association between patients with CoCr implants and higher rates of any of the outcomes. Conclusion. CoCr-containing THAs did not have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, or clinically meaningful heart outcomes, cancer, or neurodegenerative disorders into the second decade post-implantation. Our findings will help reassure clinicians and the increasing number of patients receiving primary THA worldwide that the use of CoCr-containing implants is not associated with significant adverse systemic effects. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):359–367

Aims. Current guidelines recommend surgery within 48 hours among patients presenting with hip fractures; however, optimal surgical timing for patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) remains unclear. Individual studies are limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneous outcomes. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effect of pre-injury OACs on time-to-surgery (TTS) and all-cause mortality among older adults with hip fracture treated surgically. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to 14 October 2019 to identify studies directly comparing outcomes among hip fracture patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) prior to hospital admission to hip fracture patients not on OACs. Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool all outcomes (TTS, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day mortality). Results. A total of 34 studies (involving 39,446 patients) were included in our systematic review. TTS was 13.7 hours longer (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.8 to 17.5; p < 0.001) among hip fracture patients on OACs compared to those not on OACs. This translated to a three-fold higher odds of having surgery beyond the recommended 48 hours from admission (odds ratio (OR) 3.0 (95% CI 2.1 to 4.3); p = 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher (OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.8); p < 0.03) among anticoagulated patients. Among studies comparing anticoagulants, there was no statistically significant difference in time-to-surgery between patients taking a DOAC compared to a VKA. Conclusion. Patients presenting with a hip fracture who were taking OACs prior to injury experience a delay in time-to-surgery and higher mortality than non-anticoagulated patients. Patients on DOACs may be at risk of further delays. Evaluating expedited surgical protocols in hip fracture patients on OACs is an urgent priority, with the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality in this group of high-risk patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):222–233

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

Aims. Fracture of the odontoid process (OP) in the elderly is associated with mortality rates similar to those of hip fracture. The aim of this study was to identify variables that predict mortality in patients with a fracture of the OP, and to assess whether established hip fracture scoring systems such as the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) or Sernbo Score might also be used as predictors of mortality in these patients. Patients and Methods. We conducted a retrospective review of patients aged 65 and over with an acute fracture of the OP from two hospitals. Data collected included demographics, medical history, residence, mobility status, admission blood tests, abbreviated mental test score, presence of other injuries, and head injury. All patients were treated in a semi-rigid cervical orthosis. Univariate and multivariate analysis were undertaken to identify predictors of mortality at 30 days and one year. A total of 82 patients were identified. There were 32 men and 50 women with a mean age of 83.7 years (67 to 100). Results. Overall mortality was 14.6% at 30 days and 34.1% at one year. Univariate analysis revealed head injury and the NHFS to be significant predictors of mortality at 30 days and one year. Multivariate analysis showed that head injury is an independent predictor of mortality at 30 days and at one year. The NHFS was an independent predictor of mortality at one year. The presence of other spinal injuries was an independent predictor at 30 days. Following survival analysis, an NHFS score greater than 5 stratified patients into a significantly higher risk group at both 30 days and one year. Conclusion. The NHFS may be used to identify high-risk patients with a fracture of the OP. Head injury increases the risk of mortality in patients with a fracture of the OP. This may help to guide multidisciplinary management and to inform patients. This paper provides evidence to suggest that frailty rather than age alone may be important as a predictor of mortality in elderly patients with a fracture of the odontoid process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:253–259