Most western countries have implemented fast-track hip fracture aiming at surgery within 24 hours, since the mortality rate hereafter rises markedly. In Greenland, it is not achievable to operate within 24 hours. Arctic people live in sparsely populated areas and Greenland's population is scattered along the vast coastline. All patients must be chartered to Nuuk by airplane which can take up till several days to weeks, due to logistics and the Arctic weather. This presents a challenge regarding adhering to western guidelines. The operative delay may be acceptable though, as it is the impression that the Greenlandic population survives and endures better than patients of western populations. However, as data are lacking, we aimed to describe mortality among hip fracture patients in Greenland taking frailty and comorbidities into account. All patients with ICD-10 codes DS720, DS721 and DS722 from 2018-2022 were identified as 261 patients diagnosed with hip fractures. Variables including time of diagnosis, time to operation, reasons for delay, ASA-score, Charlson Comorbidity index, time of death, and other possible confounding variables were analyzed. Primary outcome was mortality rates at 30-day post-OP and 1-year post-OP.Introduction
Method
Using the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry (ANZHFR) data, this study aimed to identify patient, fracture, and management factors associated with survival, mobility and residential status at 120 days. This will allow future interventions to target modifiable risk factors to improve the overall care of patients with hip fractures. All NZ patients from 2018 – 2020 were included. Baseline demographics, management factors, and outcomes were recorded. Key outcomes were change in walking status, residential status and survival at 120 days. Univariate analysis was performed to compare differences in demographics, surgical and management factors for the key variables. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify factors independently associated with outcomes.Aims
Methods
Extracapsular
Lag screw cut-out is a serious complication of dynamic hip screw fixation in trochanteric hip fractures. Lag screw position is recognised as a crucial factor influencing the occurrence of lag screw cut-out. We propose a modification of the Tip Apex Distance (TAD) and hypothesize that it could enhance the reliability of predicting lag screw cut-out in these injuries. A retrospective study of hip fracture cases was conducted from January 2018 to July 2022. A total of 109 patients were eligible for the final analysis. The modified TAD was measured in millimetres, based on the sum of the traditional TAD in the lateral view and the net value of two distances in the anteroposterior (AP) view. The first distance is from the lag screw tip to the opposite point on the femoral head along the lag screw axis, while the second distance is from that point to the femoral head apex. The first distance is a positive value, whereas the second distance is positive if the lag screw is superior and negative if it is inferior. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to assess the reliability of various parameters for evaluating the lag screw position within the femoral head. Factors such as reduction quality, fracture pattern according to the AO/OTA classification, TAD, Calcar-Referenced TAD, Axis Blade Angle, Parker’s ratio in the AP view, Cleveland Zone 1, and modified TAD were statistically associated with lag screw cut-out. Among the tested parameters, the novel parameter exhibited 90.1% sensitivity and 90.9% specificity for predicting lag screw cut-out at a cut-off value of 25 mm, with a p-value < 0.001. The modified TAD demonstrated the highest reliability in predicting lag screw cut-out. A value of 25 mm may potentially reduce the risk of lag screw cut-out in trochanteric hip fractures.
In general the life expectancy of population is improving. This is causing to increase case load of peri-prosthesis fractures after joint replacements. We present our results of peri-prosthesis fracture around hip managed by revision arthroplasty. A retrospective analysis of 24 consecutive patients of periprosthetic hip fracture treated with a revision arthroplasty at Major Trauma Centre between February 2021 and January 2022.Abstract
Introduction
Methods
We aimed to use data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the sliding hip screw vs. intramedullary nailing (IMN) for trochanteric fractures to examine complication rates between those managed with a short vs. long IMN. This is a secondary analysis using one arm of an RCT of patients ≥18 years with trochanteric fractures. We examined differences in fracture-related (femoral shaft fracture, implant failure, surgical site infection (SSI), nonunion, limb shortening, and pain) and medical (organ failure, respiratory distress, stroke, deep vein thrombosis [DVT] gastrointestinal upset, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, sepsis, or urinary tract infection) adverse events (AE), and readmission between short vs. long IMNs. We included 412 trochanteric fracture patients, 339 (82.2%) of whom received a short (170mm–200mm) nail, while 73 (17.7%) received a long (260mm–460 mm) nail. Patients in the long group were more likely to be admitted from home (vs. an institution), and have comorbidities, or more complex fracture types. Patients in the long group had higher rates of fracture-related AE (12.3%) vs. the short group (3.5%). Specifically, SSI (5.5% vs. 0.3%) and pain (2.7% vs. 0.0%) were significantly higher in the long group. Patients in the long group were also more likely to develop DVT (2.7% vs. 0.3%), and be readmitted to the hospital (28.8% vs. 20.7%). Following covariable adjustment, long nails remained associated with a higher odds of fracture-related AE (5.11, 1.96–13.33) compared to short nails. We found no association between the adjusted odds of readmission and nail length (1.00, 0.52–1.94). Our analyses revealed that trochanteric fracture patients managed with long IMN nails may have a higher odds of fracture-related AE compared to short nails. Future research is required to validate these findings with larger event rates, and further optimize IMN for trochanteric fracture patients.
The incidence of hip fractures in the elderly is increasing. Minimally displaced and un-displaced hip fractures can be treated with either internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty. The aim was identifying the revision rate of internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty in patients 60 years or older with Garden I or II hip fractures and to identify risk factors associated with each method. A retrospective analysis was conducted from 2 Major Trauma Centres and 9 Trauma Units between 01/01/2015 and 31/12/2020. Patients managed conservatively, treated with a total hip replacement and missing data were excluded from the study. 1273 patients were included of which 26.2% (n=334) had cannulated hip fixation (CHF), 19.4% (n=247) had a dynamic hip screw (DHS) and 54.7% (n=692) had a hemiarthroplasty. 66 patients in total (5.2%) required revision surgery. The revision rates for CHF, DHS and hemiarthroplasty were 14.4%, 4%, 1.2% (p<0.001) respectively. Failed fixation was the most common reason for revision with the incidence increasing by 7-fold in the CHF group [45.8% (n=23) vs. 33.3% (n=3) in DHS; p<0.01]. The risk factors identified for CHF revision were age >80 (p<0.05), female gender (p<0.05) and smoking (p<0.05). The average length of hospital stay was decreased when using CHF compared to DHS and hemiarthroplasty (12.6 days vs 14.9 days vs 18.1 days respectively, p<0.001) and the 1 year mortality rate for CHF, DHS and hemiarthroplasty was 2.5%, 2% and 9% respectively. Fixation methods for Garden I and II hip fractures in elderly patients are associated with a higher revision rate than hemiarthroplasty. CHF has the highest revision rate at 14.4% followed by DHS and hemiarthroplasty. Female patients, patients over the age of 80 and patients with poor bone quality are considered high risk for fixation failure with CHF. When considering a fixation method in such patients, DHS is more robust than a screw construct, followed by hemiarthroplasty.
Hip fractures are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and malnutrition is a critical determinant of these outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine whether oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) improves postoperative outcomes in older patients with hip fracture. An electronic systematic literature search was conducted in August 2022 using four databases. Randomized trials documenting ONS in older patients with hip fracture (aged 50+) were included. Two reviewers evaluated study eligibility, data extraction and assessed study quality. There were 812 studies identified of which 18 studies involving 1,512 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall meta-analysis demonstrates that ONS was associated with a significant risk reduction in infective complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95%CI 0.38, 0.76), pressure ulcers (OR 0.54, 95%CI 0.33, 0.88), total complications rate (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.42, 0.79). Length of hospital stay (LOS) was also significantly reduced (weighted mean difference (WMD) −2.01, 95%CI −3.52, −0.5), particularly in the rehabilitation LOS (WMD −4.17, 95%CI −7.08, −1.26). There was a tendency towards lower risk in mortality (OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.62, 1.4) and readmission (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.16, 1.73), though statistical significance was not achieved. The overall compliance to ONS ranged from 64.1% to 100%, but no factors influencing compliance were identified. This systematic review was the first to quantitatively demonstrate that ONS reduces half the risk of infective complications, pressure ulcers, total complication rate and reduces LOS. ONS should be a regular and integrated part of medical practice, especially given that the compliance to ONS is acceptable.
Fractures of the neck of femur are common in the older adult with significant morbidity and mortality rates. This patient cohort is associated with frailty and multiple complex medical and social needs requiring a multidisciplinary team to provide optimal care. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes at 5 years following implementation of a collaborative service between the Orthopaedic and Geriatric departments of Southland Hospital in 2012. Retrospective data was collected for patients aged 65 years and older who were admitted with a fragility hip fracture. Data was collated for 2011 (pre-implementation) and 2017 (post-implementation). Demographics and ASA scores were recorded. We assessed 30-day and 1-year mortality, surgical data, length of stay and complications. There were 74 patient admissions in 2011 and 107 in 2017. Mean age at surgery was 84.2 years in 2011 and 82.6 years in 2017 (p>0.05). Between the 2011 and 2017 groups there has been a non-significant reduction in length of stay on the orthopaedic ward (9.8 days vs 7.5 days, p=0.138) but a significant reduction in length of stay on the rehabilitation ward (19.9 vs 9 days, p<0.001). There was a significant decrease in frequency of patients with a complication (71.6% vs 57%, p=0.045) and a marginal reduction in number of complications (p=0.057). Through logistic regression controlling for age, sex and ASA score, there was a reduction in the odds of having a complication by 12% between 2011 and 2017 (p<0.001). There was no difference in mortality between the groups. The orthogeriatric model of care at Southland Hospital appears to have reduced both the frequency of complications and length of stay on the rehabilitation ward 5 years after its implementation. This is the first study in New Zealand demonstrating medium-term post-implementation follow-up of what is currently a nationally accepted standard model of care.
Current recommendations advocate for surgery within 48 hours from time of injury as a keystone in care for elderly patients with hip fractures. A spare population density within regional Australia provides physical challenges to meet time critical care parameters. This study aims to review the impact of delays to timely surgery for elderly hip fracture patients within a regional Australian population. A retrospective, comparative analysis was undertaken of 140 consecutive hip fracture patients managed at a single rural referral hospital, from June 2020 until June 2021. Factors such as age, time to transfer, time to surgery, 30-day complication and 6-month complication rates were collected. Statistical analysis was performed where applicable. Mean time to surgery was 33.9 hours. A greater proportion of patients whom directly presented underwent surgery within the recommended 48 hours (91.5% vs 75.3%). The statistically significant delay in time to surgery was found to be 6.4 hours. Lower 180-day morbidity and mortality rates were observed in patients undergoing surgery within 48 hours (13.8% vs 36%), This is in comparison to the overall mortality rate of 19.2%. Delay to surgery for elderly hip fracture patients was associated with an increase 30-day and 180-day morbidity and mortality rate. A greater proportion of patients transferred from peripheral hospitals experienced a delay in surgery. Early transfer and prioritization of such patients is recommended to achieve comparative outcomes for rural and remote Australians.
In 2007, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was conceived in the United Kingdom (UK) as a national audit aiming to improve hip fracture care across the country. It now represents the world's largest hip fracture registry. The purpose of the NHFD is to evaluate aspects of best practice for hip fracture care, at an institutional level, that reflect the evidence-based clinical guidelines and quality standards developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. No national program currently exists, equivalent to the NHFD, in Canada despite evidence suggesting that national audit programs can significantly improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate aspects of best practice for hip fractures at our Canadian academic tertiary referral center using the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and benchmarks used by the NHFD. In doing so, we aimed to compare our performance to other hospitals contributing to the NHFD database. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on consecutive patients who presented to our Canadian center for surgical management of a hip fracture between August 2019 to September 2020. Fracture types included intertrochanteric, subtrochanteric, and femoral neck fractures treated with either surgical fixation or arthroplasty. Cases were identified from the affiliate institute's Operatively Repaired Fractures Database (ORFD). The ORFD prospectively collects patient-level data extracted from electronic medical records, operating room information systems, and from patients’ discharge summaries. All applicable data from our database were compared to the established KPI and benchmarks published by the NHFD that apply to the Canadian healthcare system. Six hundred and seven patients’ data (64.5% female) were extracted from the ORFD, mean age 80.4 ± 13.3 years. The NHFD contains data from 63,284 patients across the entire UK. The affiliate institute performed inferiorly compared to the NHFD for two KPIs: prompt surgery (surgery by the day following presentation with hip fracture, 52.8% vs. 69%) and prompt mobilization after surgery (mobilized out of bed by the day after operation, 43.0% vs. 81.0%). However, more patients at the affiliate institute were not delirious when tested postoperatively (89.6% vs. 68.4%). There was no significant difference in the average length of stay (12.23 days versus 13.5 days) or in 30-day mortality rate (8.4% versus 8.3%). More than half of all KPI's and benchmarks for patients receiving a hip fracture surgery at our tertiary referral center in Canada ranked significantly lower than patients receiving a hip fracture surgery in the UK. These findings indicate that perhaps a national audit program should be implemented in Canada to improve aspects of hip fracture care, at an institutional level. Following evidence-based clinical guidelines and using standardized benchmarks would encourage change and foster improvement across Canadian centres when necessary.
Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use is becoming more widespread in the geriatric population. Depending on the type of DOAC, several days are required for its anticoagulant effects to resorb, which may lead to surgical delays. This can have an important impact on hip fracture patients who require surgery. The goal of the current study is to compare surgical delays, mortality and complications for hip fracture patients who were on a DOAC to those who were not. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a university hospital in Sherbrooke. All hip fracture patients between 2012 and 2018 who were on a DOAC prior to their surgery were included. These patients were matched with similar patients who were not on an anticoagulant (non-DOAC) for age, sex, type of fracture and date of operation. Demographic and clinical data were collected for all patients. Surgical delay was defined as time of admission to time of surgery. Mortality and complications up to one year postoperative were also noted. Each cohort comprised of 74 patients. There were no statistically signification differences in Charleson Comorbidty Index and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores between cohorts. Surgical delay was significantly longer for DOAC patients (36.3±22.2 hours vs. 18.6±18.9 hours, p < 0 .001). Mortality (6.1%) and overall complication (33.8%) rates were similar between the two cohorts. However, there were more surgical reinterventions in DOAC patients than non-DOAC ones (16.2% vs. 0.0%, p < 0 .001). Among DOAC patients, mortality was greater for those operated after 48 hours (23.1% vs. 3.3%, p < 0 .05) and complications were more frequent for those operated after 24 hours (52.0% vs. 37.5%, p < 0 .05). Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use in hip fracture patients is associated with longer surgical delays. Longer delays to surgery are associated with higher mortality and complication rates in hip fracture patients taking a DOAC. Hip fracture patients should have their surgery performed as soon as medically possible, regardless of anticoagulant use.
Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use is becoming more widespread in the geriatric population. Depending on the type of DOAC, several days are required for its anticoagulant effects to resorb, which may lead to surgical delays. This can have an important impact on hip fracture patients who require surgery. The goal of the current study is to compare surgical delays, mortality and complications for hip fracture patients who were on a DOAC to those who were not. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a university hospital in Sherbrooke. All hip fracture patients between 2012 and 2018 who were on a DOAC prior to their surgery were included. These patients were matched with similar patients who were not on an anticoagulant (non-DOAC) for age, sex, type of fracture and date of operation. Demographic and clinical data were collected for all patients. Surgical delay was defined as time of admission to time of surgery. Mortality and complications up to one year postoperative were also noted. Each cohort comprised of 74 patients. There were no statistically signification differences in Charleson Comorbidty Index and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores between cohorts. Surgical delay was significantly longer for DOAC patients (36.3±22.2 hours vs. 18.6±18.9 hours, p < 0 .001). Mortality (6.1%) and overall complication (33.8%) rates were similar between the two cohorts. However, there were more surgical reinterventions in DOAC patients than non-DOAC ones (16.2% vs. 0.0%, p < 0 .001). Among DOAC patients, mortality was greater for those operated after 48 hours (23.1% vs. 3.3%, p < 0 .05) and complications were more frequent for those operated after 24 hours (52.0% vs. 37.5%, p < 0 .05). Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use in hip fracture patients is associated with longer surgical delays. Longer delays to surgery are associated with higher mortality and complication rates in hip fracture patients taking a DOAC. Hip fracture patients should have their surgery performed as soon as medically possible, regardless of anticoagulant use.
Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161 Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique.
Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular (“AI/machine learning”), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered. Cite this article:
Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161 Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique.
Aim. To investigate the incidence and time-trend in reoperation due to deep Surgical Site Infection (SSI) following hip fracture surgery. Method. This was a population-based, nationwide, cohort study. We included 74,771 from the Danish Multidisciplinary
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. 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).Aims
Methods
Hip fractures represent one of the most challenging injuries in orthopaedic practice due to the associated morbidity, mortality and the financial burden they impose on the health care systems. By many still considered as the gold standard in the management of intertrochanteric fractures, the Dynamic Hip Screw utilizes controlled collapse during weight bearing to stabilize the fracture. Despite being a highly successful device, mechanical failure rate is not uncommon. The most accepted intraoperative indicator for lag screw failure is the tip apex distance (TAD), yet lateral femoral wall thickness (LWT) is another evolving parameter for detecting the potential for lateral wall fracture with subsequent medialization and implant failure. The aim of this study is to determine the mean and cut off levels for LWT that warrant lateral wall fracture and the implications of that on implant failure, revision rates and implant choice. This prospective cohort study included 42 patients with a mean age of 70.43y with intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with DHS fixation by the same consultant surgeon from April 2019 to December 2019. The study sample was calculated based on a confidence level of 90% and margin of error of 5%. Fracture types included in the study are 31A1 and 31A2 based on the AO/OTA classification system. LWT was assessed in all patients preoperatively using Surgimap (Nemaris, NY, USA) software. Patients were divided into two groups according to the post-operative integrity of the lateral femoral wall, where group (A) sustained a lateral femoral wall fracture intraoperatively or within 12 months after the index procedure, while in group (B) the lateral femoral wall remained intact. All patients were regularly followed up radiologically and clinically per the Harris Hip Score (HHS) for a period of 12 months.Introduction and Objective
Materials and Methods
Thru purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a consecutive series of conversion total hip arthroplasty (cTHA) following previous hip fractures. A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent cTHAs from 2008–2017 at an urban academic teaching institution was performed. Eighty-eight patients were included in this study. The mean age at the cTHA was 66 years (range 27 to 89). 67% of the patients wre women. The mean BMI was 28 kg/m2 (range 17 to 41). The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3 (range 0 to 9). The mean follow-up was 49 months (range 24 to 131). The mean duration from the hip fracture fixation to the cTHA was 51 months (range 10 to 144). The mean operating time was 188 minutes, (range 71 to 423) with a mean estimated blood loss of 780 ml (range 300 to 2500). Revision-type (long-stem) designs were used in 65% of the cases. The mean length of hospital stay was 8 days (range 2 to 61). The readmission rate was 37% within 90 days after the CTHAs. Of these, 57% were due to non-orthopaedic complications. There were 10 orthopaedic complications: 7 PJIs, all of which required I&D and 3 required staged revision. There were 2 dislocations treated with closed reduction and 1 case of intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture during femoral component insertion. There was no revision for aseptic loosening within the follow-up period. The one-year mortality rate was 0%. cTHAs were associated with longer operating time, more blood loss, longer length of hospital stay, and higher readmission rates than the primary THAs in our institutional database. We believe utilizing a multi-disciplinary care protocol to optimize these patients is needed to reduce the high rate of readmissions, and the complications in this patient population.