Aims. Historically, patients undergoing surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) have been nursed postoperatively in a critical care (CC) setting because of the challenges posed by prone positioning, extensive exposures, prolonged operating times, significant blood loss, major intraoperative fluid shifts, cardiopulmonary complications, and difficulty in postoperative pain management. The primary aim of this paper was to determine whether a scoring system, which uses Cobb angle, forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and number of levels to be fused, is a valid method of predicting the need for postoperative critical care in AIS patients who are to undergo scoliosis correction with posterior spinal fusion (PSF). Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all AIS patients who had undergone PSF between January 2018 and January 2020 in a specialist tertiary spinal referral centre. All patients were assessed preoperatively in an anaesthetic clinic. Postoperative care was defined as ward-based (WB) or critical care (CC), based on the preoperative FEV1, FVC, major curve Cobb angle, and the planned number of instrumented levels. Results. Overall, 105 patients were enrolled. Their mean age was 15.5 years (11 to 25) with a mean weight of 55 kg (35 to 103). The mean Cobb angle was 68° (38° to 122°). Of these, 38 patients were preoperatively scored to receive postoperative CC. However, only 19% of the cohort (20/105) actually needed CC-level support. Based on these figures, and an average paediatric intensive care unit stay of one day before stepdown to ward-based care, the potential cost-saving on the first postoperative night for this cohort was over £20,000. There was no statistically significant difference between the Total Pathway Score (TPS), the numerical representation of the four factors being assessed, and the actual level of care received (p = 0.052) or the American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (p = 0.187). Binary logistic regression analysis of the TPS variables showed that the preoperative Cobb angle was the only variable which significantly predicted the need for critical care. Conclusion. Most patients undergoing posterior fusion surgery for AIS do not need critical care. Of the readily available preoperative measures, the Cobb angle is the only predictor of the need for higher levels of care, and has a threshold value of 74.5°. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):713–719

Aims

During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing.

The June 2024 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Skin antisepsis before surgical fixation of limb fractures; Comparative analysis of intramedullary nail versus plate fixation for fibula fracture in supination external rotation type IV ankle injury; Early weightbearing versus late weightbearing after intramedullary nailing for distal femoral fracture (AO/OTA 33) in elderly patients: a multicentre propensity-matched study; Long-term outcomes with spinal versus general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery; Operative versus nonoperative management of unstable medial malleolus fractures: a randomized clinical trial; Impact of smoking status on fracture-related infection characteristics and outcomes; Reassessing empirical antimicrobial choices in fracture-related infections; Development and validation of the Nottingham Trauma Frailty Index (NTFI) for older trauma patients.

Aims

Ankle fracture is one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries sustained in the UK. Many patients experience pain and physical impairment, with the consequences of the fracture and its management lasting for several months or even years. The broad aim of ankle fracture treatment is to maintain the alignment of the joint while the fracture heals, and to reduce the risks of problems, such as stiffness. More severe injuries to the ankle are routinely treated surgically. However, even with advances in surgery, there remains a risk of complications; for patients experiencing these, the associated loss of function and quality of life (Qol) is considerable. Non-surgical treatment is an alternative to surgery and involves applying a cast carefully shaped to the patient’s ankle to correct and maintain alignment of the joint with the key benefit being a reduction in the frequency of common complications of surgery. The main potential risk of non-surgical treatment is a loss of alignment with a consequent reduction in ankle function. This study aims to determine whether ankle function, four months after treatment, in patients with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting is not worse than in those treated with surgical intervention, which is the current standard of care.

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.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the consensus best practice approach for the investigation and management of children (aged 0 to 15 years) in the UK with musculoskeletal infection (including septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, pyomyositis, tenosynovitis, fasciitis, and discitis). This consensus can then be used to ensure consistent, safe care for children in UK hospitals and those elsewhere with similar healthcare systems.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601.

Aims

The aim of this investigation was to compare risk of infection in both cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) as well as in total hip arthroplasty (THA) following femoral neck fracture.

The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):481–486.

The April 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Do technical errors determine outcomes of operatively managed femoral neck fractures in younger adults?; Single-stage or two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM); Fixation better than revision in type B periprosthetic fractures of taper slip stems; Can you maximize femoral head size at the expense of liner thickness?; Plasma D-dimer for periprosthetic joint infection?; How important is in vivo oxidation?; Total hip arthroplasty for HIV patients with osteonecrosis.

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

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint. Results. A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%). Conclusion. Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124–134

Aims

Several studies have reported that patients presenting during the evening or weekend have poorer quality healthcare. Our objective was to examine how timely surgery for patients with severe open tibial fracture varies by day and time of presentation and by type of hospital. This cohort study included patients with severe open tibial fractures from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN).

Aims

This study estimated trends in incidence of open fractures and the adherence to clinical standards for open fracture care in England.

Aims

The last decade has seen a marked increase in surgical rib fracture fixation (SRF). The evidence to support this comes largely from retrospective cohorts, and adjusting for the effect of other injuries sustained at the same time is challenging. This study aims to assess the impact of SRF after blunt chest trauma using national prospective registry data, while controlling for other comorbidities and injuries.

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) incidence following hip replacement surgery continues to rise. There is a national drive to centralise PFF treatment within specialist centres to improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The financial implications of treating PFFs must be analysed to guide allocation of funding. Data were collected for 129 PFFs admitted from 02/04/2014–19/05/2020. Financial data were provided by the Patient Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS) team. Primary outcomes were cost, revenue and margin for each PFF. Additional data were collected on length of stay (LOS), critical care requirements and clinical outcomes. Statistical comparisons were made between treatment type (fixation vs revision). Significance was set to p<0.05. Across the entire cohort, total cost was £2,389,901, total revenue was £1,695,435 and total loss was £694,481. Highest costs were ward stay (£714,591), theatre utilisation (£382,625), and overheads (£249,110). Median cost was £15,863 (IQR, £11,092-£22,221), median revenue was £11,305 (IQR, £7,147-£15,222) and median loss was £3,795 (IQR, £605-£8687). Median LOS was 21 days (IQR 13–34) and 28.7% patients required critical care admission. Ninety-six patients were treated operatively with either fixation (n=53) or revision (n=43). Median operating time was lower for fixation versus revision (132 [IQR, 115–185] vs 201 [IQR, 159–229] minutes, p=0.001). Median cost (£17,455 [IQR, £13,095-£22,824] vs £17,399 [£13,394-£23,404]) and median loss (£5,774 [IQR, £2,092-£10,472] vs £3,860 [IQR, £96-£7,601]) were similar for fixation and revision (p=0.99 and p=0.18, respectively). Median revenue was greater for revision versus fixation (£13,925 [IQR, £11,294-£17,037] vs £12,160 [IQR, £8,486-£14,390], p=0.02). There was no difference in LOS (21 [13–34] vs 21 [14–30] days, p=0.94), critical care requirements (20 [37.7%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.30), reoperations (3 [5.7%] vs 6 [14.0%], p=0.29], local complications (8 [15.1%) vs 12 [27.9%], p=0.20) or systemic complications (11 [20.8%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.75) between fixation and revision. PFF treatment costs are high with inadequate reimbursement through tariff. Work is needed to address this disparity and reduce costs associated with LOS, theatre utilisation and implants. Treatment cost should not be used when deciding between fixation and revision surgery

This trial aims to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives as a technique to introduce large-scale change and improve outcomes for patients undergoing primary elective total hip or total knee arthroplasty. 41 NHS Trusts that did not have; a preoperative anaemia screening and optimisation pathways, or a methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus Aureus (MSSA) decolonisation pathway, in place were randomised to one of two parallel collaboratives in a two arm, cluster randomised controlled trial. Each collaborative focussed on implementing one of these two preoperative pathways. Collaboratives took place from May 2018 to November 2019. 27 Trusts completed the trial. Outcome data were collected for procedures between November 2018 and November 2019. Co-primary outcomes were perioperative blood transfusion (within 7 days of surgery) and deep surgical site infections (SSI) caused by MSSA (within 90 days) for the anaemia and MSSA arms respectively. Secondary outcomes include deep and superficial SSIs (any organism), length of stay, critical care admissions, and readmissions. Process measures include the proportion of patients receiving each preoperative initiative. 19,254 procedures from 27 Trusts are included. Process measures show both preoperative pathways were implemented to a high degree (75.3% compliance in MSSA arm; 61.2% anaemia arm), indicating that QICs can facilitate change in the NHS. However, there were no improvements in blood transfusions (2.9% v 2.3% adjusted-OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.52–2.75, p=0.67), MSSA deep SSIs (0.13% v 0.14% adjusted-OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.42–2.46, p=0.98), or any secondary outcome. Whilst no significant improvement in patient outcomes were seen, this trial shows quality improvement collaboratives can successfully support the implementation of new preoperative pathways in planned surgery in the NHS