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.
Industries such as agriculture, construction and military have stringent rules about hearing protection due to the risk of noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). Due to the use of power tools, orthopaedic staff may be at risk of the same condition. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have clear standards as to what is deemed acceptable occupational noise levels on an A-weighted and C weighted scale. This review is aimed to assess evidence on noise exposure testing within Orthopaedic theatres to see if it exceeds the HSE regulations. A targeted search of online databases PUBMED and EMBASE was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) principles. This review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO. An eligibility criterion identifying clinical studies which assessed noise exposure for Orthopaedic staff in theatres were included. Noise exposure data was extracted from these studies and a comparison was made with A weighted and C weighted acceptable exposure levels as quoted in the HSE regulations. Fourteen papers were deemed eligible, which reviewed 133 Orthopaedic operations and 64 Orthopaedic instruments. In total, 61% (81 of 132) of Orthopaedic operations and 70% (45 of 64) of instruments exceeded the noise regulations on an A weighted scale. 22% (10 of 46) of operations exceeded the maximum C weighted peak acceptable noise level. Orthopaedic instruments and operations can exceed safe occupational noise levels. NHS Trusts have clear policies about noise exposure in the workplace but have yet to identify Orthopaedic theatres as a potential at risk area. Orthopaedic staff need education, monitoring and protection whereas Employers and Occupational Health should consider assessments to identify at risk staff in Orthopaedic theatres and offer preventative methods from NIHL.
Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effective. We determined: (1) the cost of implementing the 2015 MHRA surveillance in “at-risk” Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) patients, and (2) how many asymptomatic hips with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) would have been missed if patients were not recalled. All BHR patients subject to the 2015 MHRA recall (all females, and males with head sizes 46mm or below, regardless of symptoms) at one specialist centre were invited for review (707 hips). All patients were investigated (Oxford Hip Score, radiographs, blood metal ions, and targeted cross-sectional imaging) and managed accordingly. Surveillance costs were calculated using finance department data, as was the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid missing one case of asymptomatic ARMD.Introduction
Methods
