Internal fixation is currently the standard of care for Garden I and II femoral neck fractures in the elderly. However, there may be a degree of posterior tilt on the preoperative lateral radiograph above which failure is likely, and primary arthroplasty would be preferred. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between posterior tilt and the risk of subsequent arthroplasty following internal fixation of Garden I and II femoral neck fractures in the elderly.

This study represents a secondary analysis of data collected in the FAITH trial, an international multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the sliding hip screw to cannulated screws in the management of femoral neck fractures in patients aged 50 years or older. For each patient who sustained a Garden I or II femoral neck fracture and had an adequate preoperative lateral radiograph, the amount of posterior tilt was categorized as < 2 0 degrees or ≥20 degrees. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to assess the association between posterior tilt and subsequent arthroplasty during the two-year follow-up period, while controlling for potential confounders.

Of the 555 patients in the study sample, posterior tilt was classified as ≥20 degrees for 67 (12.1%) and < 2 0 degrees for 488 (87.9%). Overall, 13.2% (73/555) of patients underwent subsequent arthroplasty in the 24-month follow-up period. In the multivariable analysis, patients with posterior tilt ≥20 degrees had a significantly increased risk of subsequent arthroplasty compared to those with posterior tilt < 2 0 degrees (22.4% (15/67) vs 11.9% (58/488), Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24–4, p=0.008). The other factor associated with subsequent arthroplasty was age ≥80 (p=0.03).

In this study of patients with Garden I and II femoral neck fractures, posterior tilt ≥20 degrees was associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent arthroplasty. Primary arthroplasty should be considered for Garden I and II femoral neck fractures with posterior tilt ≥20 degrees, especially among older patients.

In the polytrauma patient, intraoperative patient positioning is one factor thought to influence pulmonary complications associated with intramedullary (IM) nailing of the femur. With regards to lateral femoral nailing, it is currently unknown as to whether the position of the injured lung contributes to changes in pulmonary function. It has been proposed that, similar to prone positioning in the ICU for acute respiratory distress syndrome management, having the injured lung in a dependent position during lateral femoral nailing would prevent barotrauma from hyperinflation and promote gas exchange in the non-dependent healthy lung. This study aims to assess the association between the position of the injured lung during lateral femoral nailing and pulmonary complications as determined by ICU LOS.

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single level 1 trauma centre. All patients treated with IM nailing for femur fracture between 2006 and 2014 were screened for inclusion. Only patients who 1) underwent lateral femoral nailing and 2) had a significant chest injury, defined by chest Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) of three or greater, were included. Patients with bilateral femur fractures or symmetric bilateral thoracic injuries were excluded. Intraoperative position of the lung injury was described depending on whether the injured lung was down, or in the dependent position, during lateral femoral nailing, versus the healthy lung down. The primary outcome was ICU LOS in all study patients. Secondary analysis was performed on the subgroup of patients who were admitted to ICU prior to femoral nailing. Data analysis assessing for differences in ICU LOS between groups was performed through Wilcoxan testing.

One hundred and thirteen femur fractures were included in the study. During lateral femoral nailing, 53 patients had the injured lung down and 60 patients had the healthy lung down. No differences between age, ICU admission rate, injury severity score, chest AIS or head AIS were detected between the groups. There were no detectable differences in the rate of ICU admission between patients with the injured lung down (47.2%) and patients with the healthy lung down (46.7%) (P=0.96).

We were unable to detect a difference in average ICU LOS between patients who had the injured lung down (4.9 days, 95% CI 2.8 – 7) compared to patients with the healthy lung down (6 days, 95% CI 3.7 – 8.4) during lateral femoral nailing (P=0.73). When looking only at patients who were admitted to ICU prior to femoral nailing, the LOS was 10.3 days (95% CI 7 – 13.7) in injured lung down patients compared to 12.9 days (9.2 – 16.6) in healthy lung down patients (P= 0.25).

In patients with chest AIS greater than three, the position of the injured lung during lateral femoral IM nailing does not appear to affect ICU LOS.

The effect of early surgery on hip fracture outcomes has received considerable study and although it has been suggested that early surgical treatment of these fractures leads to better patient outcomes, the findings are inconclusive. The American College of Surgeon's (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) prospectively collects blinded, risk-adjusted patient-level data on surgical patients in over 600 participating hospitals worldwide. The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of ACS-NSQIP hospital patients that are currently being treated within the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) time to hip fracture surgery benchmark. The secondary objectives were to identify risk factors for missing the benchmark, and determine if the benchmark is associated with improved 30-day patient outcomes.

Patients that underwent hip fracture surgery between 2005–2013 and entered in the ACS-NSQIP database were included in the study. Counts and proportions were used to determine how frequently the NICE benchmark was met. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors of missing the NICE benchmark and determine if missing the benchmark was associated with 30-day mortality/complications rates.

26,006 patients met the study enrolment criteria. 71.4% of patients were treated within the NICE benchmark and 89.4% were treated by post-admission day two. Gender, dyspnea, infectious illness, bleeding disorders, preoperative hematocrit, preoperative platelet count, arthroplasty procedure type, race other than White, and hip fracture diagnosis were all statistically significant predictors of missing the benchmark (p<0.01). Meeting the NICE benchmark was not associated with reductions in major complications (OR=0.93, CI=0.83–1.05, p=0.23), nor a clinically significant difference in postoperative length of stay (LOS) (parameter estimate=0.77, p<0.01); however, it was associated with a decreased 30-day mortality (OR=0.88, CI=0.78–0.99, p=0.03) and the likelihood of minor complications (OR=0.92, CI=0.84–0.995, p=0.04).

ACS-NSQIP hospitals are currently compatible with the NICE benchmark. However, data from the ACS-NSQIP database suggests that surgical treatment within the NICE benchmark may be unnecessarily narrow. Extending the benchmark to post-operative day two did not significantly increase the risk of 30-day mortality and minor complications; nor did it extend the average LOS. Neither the NICE benchmark, nor the extended two-day standard, was associated with reductions in major complications. The findings highlight the importance of further prospective investigation to monitor the effect of time to surgery benchmarks.

There is ongoing debate regarding the optimal surgical treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) compared to hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the management of these fractures.

A cost–utility analysis using decision tree and Markov modelling based on data from the published literature was conducted. A single-payer perspective with a lifetime time horizon was adopted. A willingness to pay threshold of CAD $50,000 was used. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the study's primary outcome measure.

In comparison to HA, the incremental cost per QALY gained for RTSA was $13,679. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed the model to be sensitive to the RTSA implant cost and the RTSA procedural costs. Two-way sensitivity analysis suggested RTSA could also be cost-effective within the first two years of surgery with an early complication rate as high as 25% (if RTSA implant cost was approximately $3,000); or conversely, RTSA implant cost could be as high as $8,500 if its early complication rates were 5%. The ICER of $13,679 is well below the WTP threshold of $50,000 and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 92.6% of model simulations favoured RTSA.

Our economic analysis found that RTSA for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in the elderly is the preferred economic strategy when compared to HA. The ICER of RTSA is well-below standard willingness to pay thresholds, and its estimate of cost-effectiveness is similar to other highly successful orthopaedic strategies such as total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of hip arthritis.

The Radiographic Union Score for Hip (RUSH) is an outcome instrument designed to describe radiographic healing of femoral neck fractures. The ability to identify fractures that have not healed is important for defining non-union in clinical trials and predicting patients that likely require additional surgery to promote fracture healing. We sought to determine a RUSH threshold score that defines nonunion at 6-months post-injury. Our secondary objective was to determine if this threshold was associated with increased risk for non-union surgery.

A sample of 248 patients with adequate six-month hip radiographs and complete two-year clinical follow-up were analysed from a multi-national hip fracture trial (FAITH). All patients had a femoral neck fracture and were treated with either multiple cancellous screws or a sliding hip screw. Two reviewers independently determined the RUSH score based on the six-month post-injury radiographs, and agreement was assessed using the Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Fracture healing was determined by two independent methods: 1) prospectively by the treating surgeon using clinical and radiographic assessments, and 2) retrospectively by a Central Adjudication Committee using radiographs alone. Receiver Operator Curve analysis was used to define a RUSH threshold score that was specific for fracture nonunion.

RUSH score inter-rater agreement was high (ICC: 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.85). The mean six-month RUSH score for all included patients was 24.4 (SD 3.4). A threshold score of <18 was associated with a greater than 98% specificity for nonunion. Furthermore, patients with a six-month RUSH score below 18 were more the seven-times more likely to require revision surgery for nonunion (Relative Risk: 7.25, 95% CI 2.62 to 20.00).

The six-month RUSH score can effectively be used to communicate when a femoral neck fracture has not healed. The validity of our conclusions was further supported by the increased risk of nonunion surgery for patients below the RUSH threshold. We believe our findings can standardise a definition of nonunion for clinical trials and recommend the use of the RUSH and its <18-point threshold when describing femoral neck nonunion.

Level of evidence (LOE) determination is a reliable tool to assess the strength of research based on study design. Improvements in LOE are necessary for the advancement of evidence-based clinical care. The objectives of this study were to determine if the LOE presented at the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) annual meeting has improved over time and to determine how the LOE presented at MSTS annual meetings compares to that of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) annual meetings.

We reviewed abstracts from the MSTS and OTA annual meeting podium presentations from 2005 to 2014. Three independent reviewers evaluated a total of 1222 abstracts for study type and LOE. Changes in the distributions of study type and LOE over time were evaluated by Pearson Chi-Squared test.

There were a total of 577 podium abstracts from the MSTS and 645 from the OTA. Of the MSTS therapeutic studies, 0.5% (2/376) were level I, while 75% (281/376) were level IV. There was a seven-fold higher proportion of level I studies (3.4% [14/409]) and less than half as many level IV studies (32% [130/409]) presented at OTA. There was no improvement in the MSTS LOE for all study types (p=0.13) and therapeutic study types (p=0.36) over the study decade. In contrast, the OTA LOE increased significantly over this time period for all study types (p<0.01). The proportion of controlled therapeutic studies (LOE I through III) versus uncontrolled studies (LOE IV) increased significantly over time at the OTA (p<0.021), but not at the MSTS (p=0.10).

Uncontrolled case series continue to dominate the MSTS scientific program, whereas over the past decade, higher-level studies and more modern study methodology has been employed by members of the OTA.