Aims. The use of multimodal non-opioid analgesia in hip fractures, specifically acetaminophen combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), has been increasing. However, the effectiveness and safety of this approach remain unclear. This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes among patients with hip fractures who preoperatively received either acetaminophen combined with NSAIDs, NSAIDs alone, or acetaminophen alone. Methods. This nationwide retrospective cohort study used data from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. We included patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent surgery for hip fractures and received acetaminophen combined with NSAIDs (combination group), NSAIDs alone (NSAIDs group), or acetaminophen alone (acetaminophen group) preoperatively, between April 2010 and March 2022. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and complications. Secondary outcomes were opioid use postoperatively; readmission within 90 days, one year, and two years; and total hospitalization costs. We used propensity score overlap weighting models, with the acetaminophen group as the reference group. Results. We identified 93,018 eligible patients, including 13,068 in the combination group, 29,203 in the NSAIDs group, and 50,474 in the acetaminophen group. Propensity score overlap weighting successfully balanced patient characteristics among the three groups, with no significant difference in in-hospital mortality rates observed among the groups (combination group risk difference 0.0% (95% CI -0.5 to 0.4%); NSAIDs group risk difference -0.2% (95% CI -0.5 to 0.2%)). However, the combination group exhibited a significantly lower risk of in-hospital complications than the acetaminophen group (risk difference -1.9% (95% CI -3.2 to -0.6%)) as well as a significantly lower risk of deep vein thrombosis (risk difference -1.4% (95% CI -2.2 to -0.7%)). Furthermore, total hospitalization costs were higher in the NSAIDs group than in the acetaminophen group (difference USD $438 (95% CI 249 to 630); p < 0.001). No significant differences in other secondary outcomes were observed among the three groups. Conclusion. The combination of acetaminophen with NSAIDs appears to be safe and advantageous in terms of reducing in-hospital complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):849–857

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between additional rehabilitation at the weekend, and in-hospital mortality and complications in patients with hip fracture who underwent surgery. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Japan using a nationwide multicentre database from April 2010 to March 2018, including 572,181 patients who had received hip fracture surgery. Propensity score matching was performed to compare patients who received additional weekend rehabilitation at the weekend in addition to rehabilitation on weekdays after the surgery (plus-weekends group), as well as those who did not receive additional rehabilitation at the weekend but did receive weekday rehabilitation (weekdays-only group). After the propensity score matching of 259,168 cases, in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome and systemic and surgical complications as the secondary outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results. The plus-weekends group was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates compared with the weekdays-only group (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.8 to 0.92; p < 0.001). Systemic complications such as acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, renal failure, and sepsis were significantly lower in the plus-weekends group, whereas urinary tract infection (UTI) and surgical complications such as surgical site infection and haematoma were significantly higher in the plus-weekends group. Conclusion. Additional weekend rehabilitation was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality, as well as acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, renal failure, and sepsis, but was also significantly associated with a higher risk of UTI and surgical complications. This result can facilitate the effective use of the limited rehabilitation resources at the weekend and improve the clinical awareness of specific complications. To establish more robust causal associations between additional rehabilitation over the weekend and clinical outcomes, further prospective studies or randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):872–879

Aims. Despite long-standing dogma, a clear relationship between the timing of surgical irrigation and debridement (I&D) and the development of subsequent deep infection has not been established in the literature. Traditionally, I&D of an open fracture has been recommended within six hours of injury based on animal studies from the 1970s, however the clinical basis for this remains unclear. Using data from a multicentre randomized controlled trial of 2,447 open fracture patients, the primary objective of this secondary analysis is to determine if a relationship exists between timing of wound I&D (within six hours of injury vs beyond six hours) and subsequent reoperation rate for infection or healing complications within one year for patients with open limb fractures requiring surgical treatment. Methods. To adjust for the influence of patient and injury characteristics on the timing of I&D, a propensity score was developed from the dataset. Propensity-adjusted regression allowed for a matched cohort analysis within the study population to determine if early irrigation put patients independently at risk for reoperation, while controlling for confounding factors. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values. All analyses were conducted using STATA 14. Results. In total, 2,286 of 2,447 patients randomized to the trial from 41 orthopaedic trauma centres across five countries had complete data regarding time to I&D. Prior to matching, the patients managed with early I&D had a higher proportion requiring reoperation for infection or healing complications (17% vs 13%; p = 0.019), however this does not account for selection bias of more severe injuries preferentially being treated earlier. When accounting for propensity matching, early irrigation was not associated with reoperation (OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.07); p = 0.73). Conclusion. When accounting for other variables, late irrigation does not independently increase risk of reoperation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1055–1062

Aims. The aim of this study to compare 30-day survival and recovery of mobility between patients mobilized early (on the day of, or day after surgery for a hip fracture) and patients mobilized late (two days or more after surgery), and to determine whether the presence of dementia influences the association between the timing of mobilization, 30-day survival, and recovery. Methods. Analysis of the National Hip Fracture Database and hospital records for 126,897 patients aged ≥ 60 years who underwent surgery for a hip fracture in England and Wales between 2014 and 2016. Using logistic regression, we adjusted for covariates with a propensity score to estimate the association between the timing of mobilization, survival, and recovery of walking ability. Results. A total of 99,667 patients (79%) mobilized early. Among those mobilized early compared to those mobilized late, the weighted odds ratio of survival was 1.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.05), of recovering outdoor ambulation was 1.25 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.51), and of recovering indoor ambulation was 1.53 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.78) by 30 days. The weighted probabilities of survival at 30 days post-admission were 95.9% (95% CI 95.7% to 96.0%) for those who mobilized early and 92.4% (95% CI 92.0% to 92.8%) for those who mobilized late. The weighted probabilities of regaining the ability to walk outdoors were 9.7% (95% CI 9.2% to 10.2%) and indoors 81.2% (95% CI 80.0% to 82.4%), for those who mobilized early, and 7.9% (95% CI 6.6% to 9.2%) and 73.8% (95% CI 71.3% to 76.2%), respectively, for those who mobilized late. Patients with dementia were less likely to mobilize early despite observed associations with survival and ambulation recovery for those with and without dementia. Conclusion. Early mobilization is associated with survival and recovery for patients (with and without dementia) after hip fracture. Early mobilization should be incorporated as a measured indicator of quality. Reasons for failure to mobilize early should also be recorded to inform quality improvement initiatives. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1317–1324

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to determine if delayed clavicular fixation results in a greater risk of operative complications and revision surgery. Patients and Methods. A retrospective case series was undertaken of all displaced clavicular fractures that underwent plate fixation over a ten-year period (2007 to 2017). Patient demographics, time to surgery, complications, and mode of failure were collected. Logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors contributing towards operative complications. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine if a potential ‘safe window’ exists from injury to delayed surgery. Propensity score matching was used to construct a case control study for comparison of risk. Results. A total of 259 patients were included in the analysis. Postoperative infection occurred in 3.9% of all patients (n = 10); the only variable associated was a greater time interval from injury to fixation (p = 0.001). Failed primary surgery requiring revision fixation was required in 7.7% of the cohort (n = 20), with smoking (p < 0.001), presence of a postoperative infection (p < 0.001), increasing age (p = 0.018), and greater time delay from injury to surgery (p = 0.015) identified as significant independent predictors on regression analysis. ROC analysis revealed that surgery beyond 96 days from injury increased the rate of major complications and revision surgery. Using a matched case cohort of cases before (n = 67) and after (n = 77) the ‘safe window’, the risk of postoperative infection increased (odds ratio (OR) 7.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 62.9; p = 0.028), fixation failure (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 12.1; p = 0.017) and revision surgery (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.5 to 15.0; p = 0.004). Conclusion. A delay to primary fixation of up to three months following injury may be acceptable, beyond which there is an increased risk of major operative complications and revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1385–1391

The spiral blade modification of the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) was designed for superior biomechanical fixation in the osteoporotic femoral head. Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes and in particular the incidence of loss of fixation. . In a series of 197 consecutive patients over the age of 50 years treated with DHS-blades (blades) and 242 patients treated with conventional DHS (screw) for AO/OTA 31.A1 or A2 intertrochanteric fractures were identified from a prospectively compiled database in a level 1 trauma centre. Using propensity score matching, two groups comprising 177 matched patients were compiled and radiological and clinical outcomes compared. In each group there were 66 males and 111 females. Mean age was 83.6 (54 to 100) for the conventional DHS group and 83.8 (52 to 101) for the blade group. Loss of fixation occurred in two blades and 13 DHSs. None of the blades had observable migration while nine DHSs had gross migration within the femoral head before the fracture healed. There were two versus four implant cut-outs respectively and one side plate pull-out in the DHS group. There was no significant difference in mortality and eventual walking ability between the groups. Multiple logistic regression suggested that poor reduction (odds ratio (OR) 11.49, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.45 to 90.9, p = 0.021) and fixation by DHS (OR 15.85, 95%CI 2.50 to 100.3, p = 0.003) were independent predictors of loss of fixation. . The spiral blade design may decrease the risk of implant migration in the femoral head but does not reduce the incidence of cut-out and reoperation. Reduction of the fracture is of paramount importance since poor reduction was an independent predictor for loss of fixation regardless of the implant being used. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:398–404

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the early postoperative mortality and morbidity in older patients with a fracture of the femoral neck, between those who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) and those who underwent hemiarthroplasty.

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

We aimed to characterise the effect of expeditious hip fracture surgery in elderly patients within 24 hours of admission on short-term post-operative outcomes.

Aims

This study aimed to analyze the correlation between transverse process (TP) fractures of the fourth (L4) and fifth (L5) lumbar vertebrae and biomechanical and haemodynamic stability in patients with a pelvic ring injury, since previous data are inconsistent.

Aim

There is not adequate evidence to establish whether external fixation (EF) of pelvic fractures leads to a reduced mortality. We used the Japan Trauma Data Bank database to identify isolated unstable pelvic ring fractures to exclude the possibility of blood loss from other injuries, and analyzed the effectiveness of EF on mortality in this group of patients.

The aim of this study was to compare the operating time, length of stay (LOS), adverse events and rate of re-admission for elderly patients with a fracture of the hip treated using either general or spinal anaesthesia. Patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent surgery for a fracture of the hip between 2010 and 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Of the 9842 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 7253 (73.7%) were treated with general anaesthesia and 2589 (26.3%) with spinal anaesthesia. On propensity-adjusted multivariate analysis, general anaesthesia was associated with slightly increased operating time (+5 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) +4 to +6, p < 0.001) and post-operative time in the operating room (+5 minutes, 95% CI +2 to +8, p < 0.001) compared with spinal anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with a shorter LOS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34, p < 0.001). Any adverse event (odds ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32, p < 0.001), thromboembolic events (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.89, p = 0.003), any minor adverse event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32, p < 0.001), and blood transfusion (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49, p < 0.001) were associated with general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with decreased rates of urinary tract infection (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87, p < 0.001). There was no clear overall advantage of one type of anaesthesia over the other, and surgeons should be aware of the specific risks and benefits associated with each type.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:689–95.