Following the establishment of regional Major Trauma Networks in England in 2012, there were concerns that pressures regarding resource allocation in Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) may have a detrimental impact on the care of patients with hip fractures in these hospitals. This study aimed to compare outcomes in hip fracture care between MTCs and trauma units (TUs). National Hip Fracture Database data was extracted from 01/01/2015 to 31/12/2022 for all hospitals in England. Outcome measures included perioperative medical and physiotherapy assessments, time to surgery, consultant supervision in theatre, Best Practice Tariff (BPT) compliance, discharge to original residence, and mortality. Data was pooled and weighted for MTCs and remaining hospitals (TUs). A total of 487,089 patients with hip fractures were included from 167 hospitals (23 MTCs and 144 TUs). MTCs achieved marginally higher rates of orthogeriatrician assessment within 72 hours of admission (91.1% vs 90.4%, p<0.001) and mobilisation out of bed by first postoperative day (81.9% vs 79.7%, p<0.001). A lower proportion of patients underwent surgery by the day after admission in MTCs (65.2% vs 69.7%, p<0.001). However, there was significantly higher consultant surgeon and anaesthetist supervision rates during surgery in MTCs (71.8% vs 61.6%, p<0.001). There was poorer compliance with BPT criteria in MTCs (57.3% vs 60.4%, p<0.001), and proportionately fewer MTC patients were discharged to their original residence (63.5% vs 60.4%, p<0.001). There was no difference between MTCs and TUs in 30-day mortality (6.8% vs 6.8%, p=0.825). This study demonstrates that MTCs have greater difficulty in providing prompt surgery to hip fracture patients. However, their marginally superior perioperative care outcomes appear to compensate for this, as their mortality rates are similar to TUs. These findings suggest that the regionalisation of major trauma in England has not significantly compromised the overall care of hip fracture patients

Aims. This study aimed to describe preoperative waiting times for surgery in hip fracture patients in Norway, and analyze factors affecting waiting time and potential negative consequences of prolonged waiting time. Methods. Overall, 37,708 hip fractures in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from January 2014 to December 2018 were linked with data in the Norwegian Patient Registry. Hospitals treating hip fractures were characterized according to their hip fracture care. Waiting time (hours from admission to start of surgery), surgery within regular working hours, and surgery on the day of or on the day after admission, i.e. ‘expedited surgery’ were estimated. Results. Mean waiting time was 22.6 hours (SD 20.7); 36,652 patients (97.2%) waited less than three days (< 72 hours), and 27,527 of the patients (73%) were operated within regular working hours (08:00 to 16:00). Expedited surgery was given to 31,675 of patients (84%), and of these, 19,985 (53%) were treated during regular working hours. Patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classes 4 and 5 were more likely to have surgery within regular working hours (odds ratio (OR) 1.59; p < 0.001), and less likely to receive expedited surgery than ASA 1 patients (OR 0.29; p < 0.001). Low-volume hospitals treated a larger proportion of patients during regular working hours than high volume hospitals (OR 1.26; p < 0.001). High-volume hospitals had less expedited surgery and significantly longer waiting times than low and intermediate-low volume hospitals. Higher ASA classes and Charlson Comorbidity Index increased waiting time. Patients not receiving expedited surgery had higher 30-day and one-year mortality rates (OR 1.19; p < 0.001) and OR 1.13; p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion. There is inequality in waiting time for hip fracture treatment in Norway. Variations in waiting time from admission to hip fracture surgery depended on both patient and hospital factors. Not receiving expedited surgery was associated with increased 30-day and one-year mortality rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):710–720

Hip fracture is a common injury with a high associated mortality. Many recommendations regarding timing of operative intervention exist for patients with such injuries. The Best Practice Tariff was introduced in England and Wales in 2010, offering financial incentives for surgery undertaken within 36 hours of admission. The England and Wales National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidance states that surgery should be performed on the day or day after admission. Due to lack of clear evidence, this recommendation is based on Humanitarian grounds. NICE have called for further research into the effect of surgical timing on mortality. We utilised data from the National Hip Fracture database prospectively collected between 2007 and 2015, comprising 413,063 hip fractures. Using 11 variables, both Cox and Logistic regression analysis was used to establish the effect on mortality of each 12 hour interval from admission to surgery. For each 12 hour time frame from admission to surgery a trend for improved 30 day survival was demonstrated the earlier the surgery was performed. However, this did not reach significance until beyond 48 hours (Hazard ratio of 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04–1.20). Surgery after 48 hours suffered significantly higher chance of mortality compared to surgery done within 12 hours. This is the largest analysis undertaken to date. Lowest mortality rates are found within the 0–12 hour window. After 48 hours there is a significant increased risk of mortality compared to the 0–12 hour time frame. As such, expeditious surgery within 48 hours can be justified both on humanitarian and survivorship grounds. Hip fracture surgery performed within 48 hours is associated with reduced mortality when compared to that beyond this time. This is in agreement with Blue Book recommendations and extends the currently recommended NICE and Best Practice Tariff targets of 36 hours

Introduction. Occult hip fractures occur in 3% of cases. Delay in treatment results in significantly increased morbidity and mortality. NICE guidelines recommend cross-sectional imaging within 24 hours and surgery on the day of, or day after, admission. MRI was the standard imaging modality for suspected occult hip fractures in our institution, but since January 2013, we have switched to multi-detector CT (MDCT) scan. Our aims were to investigate whether MDCT has improved the times to diagnosis and surgery; and whether it resulted in missed hip fractures. Patients/Materials & Methods. Retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients between 01/01/2013 and 31/08/2014 who had MDCT scan for suspected occult hip fracture. Missed fracture was defined as a patient re-presenting with hip fracture within six weeks of a negative scan. A comparative group of consecutive MRI scans from 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2012 was used. Results. Seventy-three MDCTs and 70 MRIs were included. MDCT identified nine hip fractures and other fractures in 27 patients. Mean time to scan for MDCT was 13 hours 37 minutes compared with 53 hours 36 minutes for MRI scan (p<0.001). 88.5% of MDCTs were performed within 24 hours compared with 33.3% of MRIs. Nine and 16 patients required surgery in the MDCT and MRI groups, respectively. Mean time to surgery for MDCT was 50 hours 41 minutes compared with 223 hours 21 minutes for MRI scan (p = 0.25). There were no missed hip fractures in the patients with negative MDCT scan. Discussion. MDCT scan has led to a significant reduction in time to diagnosis, and a large reduction in time to surgery. MDCT did not miss any hip fractures. Conclusion. We advocate the use of MDCT over MRI in suspected occult hip fractures as it is cheaper, quicker, and more readily available; and does not result in missed hip fractures

Aims

The objectives of this study were to investigate the patient characteristics and mortality of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) subgroups divided into two groups according to femoral component stability and to compare postoperative clinical outcomes according to treatment in Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures.

Aims

The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence of reoperation (all cause and specifically for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF)) and mortality, and associated risk factors, following a hemiarthroplasty incorporating a cemented collarless polished taper slip stem (PTS) for management of an intracapsular hip fracture.

Aims

This study aimed to determine whether lateral femoral wall thickness (LWT) < 20.5 mm was associated with increased revision risk of intertrochanteric fracture (ITF) of the hip following sliding hip screw (SHS) fixation when the medial calcar was intact. Additionally, the study assessed the association between LWT and patient mortality.

Aims

The coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic forced an unprecedented period of challenge to the NHS in the UK where hip fractures in the elderly population are a major public health concern. There are approximately 76,000 hip fractures in the UK each year which make up a substantial proportion of the trauma workload of an average orthopaedic unit. This study aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hip fracture care service and the emerging lessons to withstand any future outbreaks.

Aims

Displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) may be treated with partial (hemiarthroplasty, HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA), with recent recommendations advising that THA be used in community-ambulant patients. This study aims to determine the association between the proportion of FNF treated with THA and year of surgery, day of the week, surgeon practice, and private versus public hospitals, adjusting for known confounders.

Patients considered suitable for total hip resurfacing arthroplasty often have bilateral disease. The peri-operative complications, transfusion requirements, hospital stay, outcome and costs in patients undergoing one-stage bilateral total hip resurfacing were compared with a group of patients undergoing a two-stage procedure. A total of 92 patients were included in the study, of which 37 (40%) had a one-stage and 55 (60%) had a two-stage resurfacing. There were no significant differences in age, gender, or American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade between the groups (p = 0.31, p = 0.23, p = 0.13, respectively). There were three systemic complications in the one-stage group (8.1%) and one in the two-stage group (1.8% of patients; 0.9% of procedures). There was no significant difference in the complication rate (p = 0.72) or the transfusion requirements (p = 0.32) between the two groups. The one-stage group had a reduced total hospital stay of five days (95% confidence interval 4.0 to 6.9; p < 0.001), reduced length of time to completion of all surgery of five months (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 8.3; p < 0.001), and the reduced cost was 35% less than that of a two-stage procedure. However, the total anaesthetic time was significantly longer for the one-stage group (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval 31 to 52).

This study demonstrates that consideration should be given to one-stage surgery for patients with bilateral symptomatic disease suitable for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. A one-stage procedure appears to have benefits for both the patient and the hospital without additional complications.