Aims

Femoral periprosthetic fractures are rising in incidence. Their management is complex and carries a high associated mortality. Unlike native hip fractures, there are no guidelines advising on time to theatre in this group. We aim to determine whether delaying surgical intervention influences morbidity or mortality in femoral periprosthetic fractures.

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement. Methods. This work used data freely available from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) facilities survey in 2021, which asked 21 questions about the care of patients with PPFFs, and nine relating to clinical decision-making around a hypothetical case. Results. Of 174 centres contributing data to the NHFD, 161 provided full responses and 139 submitted data on PPFF. Lack of resources was cited as the main reason for not submitting data. Surgeon (44.6%) and theatre (29.7%) availability were reported as the primary reasons for surgical delay beyond 36 hours. Less than half had a formal process for a specialist surgeon to operate on PPFF at least every other day. The median number of specialist surgeons at each centre was four (interquartile range (IQR) 3 to 6) for PPFF around both hips and knees. Around one-third of centres reported having one dedicated theatre list per week. The routine discussion of patients with PPFF at local and regional multidisciplinary team meetings was lower than that for all-cause revision arthroplasties. Six centres reported transferring all patients with PPFF around a hip joint to another centre for surgery, and this was an occasional practice for a further 34. The management of the hypothetical clinical scenario was varied, with 75 centres proposing ORIF, 35 suggested revision surgery and 48 proposed a combination of both revision and fixation. Conclusion. There is considerable variation in both the organization of PPFF services England and Wales, and in the approach taken to an individual case. The rising incidence of PPFF and complexity of these patients highlight the need for pathway development. The adoption of networks may reduce variability and improve outcomes for patients with PPFF. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):378–384

Aims

Prior to the availability of vaccines, mortality for hip fracture patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection was three times higher than pre-pandemic rates. The primary aim of this study was to determine the 30-day mortality rate of hip fracture patients in the post-vaccine era.

Aims

The purpose was to compare operative treatment with a volar plate and nonoperative treatment of displaced distal radius fractures in patients aged 65 years and over in a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Aims

Complex displaced osteoporotic acetabular fractures in the elderly are associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality. Surgical options include either open reduction and internal fixation alone, or combined with total hip arthroplasty (THA). There remains a cohort of severely comorbid patients who are deemed unfit for extensive surgical reconstruction and are treated conservatively. We describe the results of a coned hemipelvis reconstruction and THA inserted via a posterior approach to the hip as the primary treatment for this severely high-risk cohort.

Aims. Currently, periprosthetic fractures are excluded from the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) definition of atypical femoral fracture (AFFs). This study aims to report on a series of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) that otherwise meet the criteria for AFFs. Secondary aims were to identify predictors of periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures (PAFFs) and quantify the complications of treatment. Patients and Methods. This was a retrospective case control study of consecutive patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures between 2007 and 2017. Two observers identified 16 PAFF cases (mean age 73.9 years (44 to 88), 14 female patients) and 17 typical periprosthetic fractures in patients on bisphosphonate therapy as controls (mean age 80.7 years (60 to 86, 13 female patients). Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of PAFF. Management and complications were recorded. Results. Interobserver agreement for the PAFF classification was excellent (kappa = 0.944; p < 0.001). On univariate analysis compared with controls, patients with PAFFs had higher mean body mass indices (28.6 kg/m. 2. (. sd. 8.9) vs 21.5 kg/m. 2. (. sd. 3.3); p = 0.009), longer durations of bisphosphonate therapy (median 5.5 years (IQR 3.2 to 10.6) vs 2.4 years (IQR 1.0 to 6.4); p = 0.04), and were less likely to be on alendronate (50% vs 94%; p = 0.02) with an indication of secondary osteoporosis (19% vs 0%; p = 0.049). Duration of bisphosphonate therapy was an independent predictor of PAFF on multivariate analysis (R. 2. = 0.733; p = 0.05). Following primary fracture management, complication rates were higher in PAFFs (9/16, 56%) than controls (5/17, 29%; p = 0.178) with a relative risk of any complication following PAFF of 1.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 3.8) and of reoperation 2.56 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.2). Conclusion. AFFs do occur in association with prostheses. Longer duration of bisphosphonate therapy is an independent predictor of PAFF. Complication rates are higher following PAFFs compared with typical PFFs, particularly of reoperation and infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1285–1291

Aims. Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) are devastating complications that are associated with functional limitations and increased overall mortality. Although cementless implants have been associated with an increased risk of PFF, the precise contribution of implant geometry and design on the risk of both intra-operative and post-operative PFF remains poorly investigated. A systematic review was performed to aggregate all of the PFF literature with specific attention to the femoral implant used. Patients and Methods. A systematic search strategy of several journal databases and recent proceedings from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons was performed. Clinical articles were included for analysis if sufficient implant description was provided. All articles were reviewed by two reviewers. A review of fundamental investigations of implant load-to-failure was performed, with the intent of identifying similar conclusions from the clinical and fundamental literature. Results. In total 596 articles were initially identified, with 34 being eligible for analysis. Aggregate analysis of 1691 PFFs in 342 719 primary THAs revealed a significantly higher number of PFFs with cementless femoral implants (p < 0.001). Single-wedge and double-wedge (fit-and-fill) femoral implants were associated with a threefold increase in PFF rates (p < 0.001) compared with anatomical, fully coated and tapered/rounded stems. Within cemented stems, loaded-taper (Exeter) stems were associated with more PFFs than composite-beam (Charnley) stems (p = 0.004). Review of the fundamental literature revealed very few studies comparing cementless component designs. Conclusion. Very few studies within the PFF literature provide detailed implant information. Cementless implants, specifically those of single-wedge and double-wedge, have the highest PFF rates in the literature, with most investigations recommending against their use in older patients with osteoporotic bone. This review illustrates the need for registries and future PFF studies to record implant name and information for future analysis. Furthermore, future biomechanical investigations comparing modern implants are needed to clarify the precise contribution of implant design to PFF risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):50–9