Aims. National hip fracture registries audit similar aspects of care but there is variation in the actual data collected; these differences restrict international comparison, benchmarking, and research. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) published a revised minimum common dataset (MCD) in 2022 to improve consistency and interoperability. Our aim was to assess compatibility of existing registries with the MCD. Methods. We compared 17 hip fracture registries covering 20 countries (Argentina; Australia and New Zealand; China; Denmark; England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Germany; Holland; Ireland; Japan; Mexico; Norway; Pakistan; the Philippines; Scotland; South Korea; Spain; and Sweden), setting each of these against the 20 core and 12 optional fields of the MCD. Results. The highest MCD adherence was demonstrated by the most recently established registries. The first-generation registries in Scandinavia collect data for 60% of MCD fields, second-generation registries (UK, other European, and Australia and New Zealand) collect for 75%, and third-generation registries collect data for 85% of MCD fields. Five of the 20 core fields were collected by all 17 registries (age; sex; surgery date/time of operation; surgery type; and death during acute admission). Two fields were collected by most (16/17; 94%) registries (date/time of presentation and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade), and five more by the majority (15/17; 88%) registries (type, side, and pathological nature of fracture; anaesthetic modality; and discharge destination). Three core fields were each collected by only 11/17 (65%) registries: prefracture mobility/activities of daily living; cognition on admission; and bone protection medication prescription. Conclusion. There is moderate but improving compatibility between existing registries and the FFN MCD, and its introduction in 2022 was associated with an improved level of adherence among the most recently established programmes. Greater interoperability could be facilitated by improving consistency of data collection relating to prefracture function, cognition, bone protection, and follow-up duration, and this could improve international collaborative benchmarking, research, and quality improvement. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1013–1019

Aims. The aim of this study was to explore current use of the Global Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) Minimum Common Dataset (MCD) within established national hip fracture registries, and to propose a revised MCD to enable international benchmarking for hip fracture care. Methods. We compared all ten established national hip fracture registries: England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Scotland; Australia and New Zealand; Republic of Ireland; Germany; the Netherlands; Sweden; Norway; Denmark; and Spain. We tabulated all questions included in each registry, and cross-referenced them against the 32 questions of the MCD dataset. Having identified those questions consistently used in the majority of national audits, and which additional fields were used less commonly, we then used consensus methods to establish a revised MCD. Results. A total of 215 unique questions were used across the ten registries. Only 72 (34%) were used in more than one national audit, and only 32 (15%) by more than half of audits. Only one registry used all 32 questions from the 2014 MCD, and five questions were only collected by a single registry. Only 21 of the 32 questions in the MCD were used in the majority of national audits. Only three fields (anaesthetic grade, operation, and date/time of surgery) were used by all ten established audits. We presented these findings at the Asia-Pacific FFN meeting, and used an online questionnaire to capture feedback from expert clinicians from different countries. A draft revision of the MCD was then presented to all 95 nations represented at the Global FFN conference in September 2021, with online feedback again used to finalize the revised MCD. Conclusion. The revised MCD will help aspirant nations establish new registry programmes, facilitate the integration of novel analytic techniques and greater multinational collaboration, and serve as an internationally-accepted standard for monitoring and improving hip fracture services. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):721–728

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe the current pathways of care for patients with a fracture of the hip in five low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in South Asia (Nepal and Sri Lanka) and Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines).

Aims

Patients with proximal femoral fractures (PFFs) are often multimorbid, thus unplanned readmissions following surgery are common. We therefore aimed to analyze 30-day and one-year readmission rates, reasons for, and factors associated with, readmission risk in a cohort of patients with surgically treated PFFs across Austria.

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.

Aims

Echocardiography is commonly used in hip fracture patients to evaluate perioperative cardiac risk. However, echocardiography that delays surgical repair may be harmful. The objective of this study was to compare surgical wait times, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and healthcare costs for similar hip fracture patients evaluated with and without preoperative echocardiograms.

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe variation in hip fracture treatment in Norway expressed as adherence to international and national evidence-based treatment guidelines, to study factors influencing deviation from guidelines, and to analyze consequences of non-adherence.

Aims

To compare results of institutional preferences with regard to treatment of soft tissues in the setting of open tibial shaft fractures.

Aims

This study explores data quality in operation type and fracture classification recorded as part of a large research study and a national audit with an independent review.

Aims

This study sought to determine the proportion of older adults with hip fractures captured by a multicentre prospective cohort, the World Hip Trauma Evaluation (WHiTE), whether there was evidence of selection bias during WHiTE recruitment, and the extent to which the WHiTE cohort is representative of the broader population of older adults with hip fractures.

Aims

In this study, we aimed to determine whether designation as a major trauma centre (MTC) affects the quality of care for patients with a fracture of the hip.