Aims. The purpose of this study was to determine the weightbearing practice of operatively managed fragility fractures in the setting of publically funded health services in the UK and Ireland. Methods. The Fragility Fracture Postoperative Mobilisation (FFPOM) multicentre audit included all patients aged 60 years and older undergoing surgery for a fragility fracture of the lower limb between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2019, and 1 February 2021 and 14 March 2021. Fractures arising from high-energy transfer trauma, patients with multiple injuries, and those associated with metastatic deposits or infection were excluded. We analyzed this patient cohort to determine adherence to the British Orthopaedic Association Standard, “all surgery in the frail patient should be performed to allow full weight-bearing for activities required for daily living”. Results. A total of 19,557 patients (mean age 82 years (SD 9), 16,241 having a hip fracture) were included. Overall, 16,614 patients (85.0%) were instructed to perform weightbearing where required for daily living immediately postoperatively (15,543 (95.7%) hip fracture and 1,071 (32.3%) non-hip fracture patients). The median length of stay was 12.2 days (interquartile range (IQR) 7.9 to 20.0) (12.6 days (IQR 8.2 to 20.4) for hip fracture and 10.3 days (IQR 5.5 to 18.7) for non-hip fracture patients). Conclusion. Non-hip fracture patients experienced more postoperative weightbearing restrictions, although they had a shorter hospital stay. Patients sustaining fractures of the shaft and distal femur had a longer median length of stay than demographically similar patients who received hip fracture surgery. We have shown a significant disparity in weightbearing restrictions placed on patients with fragility fractures, despite the publication of a national guideline. Surgeons intentionally restrict postoperative weightbearing in the majority of non-hip fractures, yet are content with unrestricted weightbearing following operations for hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):972–979

The February 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Total hip arthroplasty or internal fixation for hip fracture?; Significant deterioration in quality of life and increased frailty in patients waiting more than six months for total hip or knee arthroplasty: a cross-sectional multicentre study; Long-term cognitive trajectory after total joint arthroplasty; Costal cartilage grafting for a large osteochondral lesion of the femoral head; Foley catheters not a problem in the short term; Revision hips still a mortality burden?; How to position implants with a robotic arm; Uncemented stems in hip fracture?

Research into COVID-19 has been rapid in response to the dynamic global situation, which has resulted in heterogeneity of methodology and the communication of information. Adherence to reporting standards would improve the quality of evidence presented in future studies, and may ensure that findings could be interpreted in the context of the wider literature. The COVID-19 pandemic remains a dynamic situation, requiring continued assessment of the disease incidence and monitoring for the emergence of viral variants and their transmissibility, virulence, and susceptibility to vaccine-induced immunity. More work is needed to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 infection on patients who sustain a hip fracture. The International Multicentre Project Auditing COVID-19 in Trauma & Orthopaedics (IMPACT) formed the largest multicentre collaborative audit conducted in orthopaedics in order to provide an emergency response to a global pandemic, but this was in the context of many vital established audit services being disrupted at an early stage, and it is crucial that these resources are protected during future health crises. Rapid data-sharing between regions should be developed, with wider adoption of the revised 2022 Fragility Fracture Network Minimum Common Data Set for Hip Fracture Audit, and a pragmatic approach to information governance processes in order to facilitate cooperation and meta-audit. This editorial aims to: 1) identify issues related to COVID-19 that require further research; 2) suggest reporting standards for studies of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases; 3) consider the requirement of new risk scores for hip fracture patients; and 4) present the lessons learned from IMPACT in order to inform future collaborative studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(6):342–345

Aims. To develop prediction models using machine-learning (ML) algorithms for 90-day and one-year mortality prediction in femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients aged 50 years or older based on the Hip fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) and Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trials. Methods. This study included 2,388 patients from the HEALTH and FAITH trials, with 90-day and one-year mortality proportions of 3.0% (71/2,388) and 6.4% (153/2,388), respectively. The mean age was 75.9 years (SD 10.8) and 65.9% of patients (1,574/2,388) were female. The algorithms included patient and injury characteristics. Six algorithms were developed, internally validated and evaluated across discrimination (c-statistic; discriminative ability between those with risk of mortality and those without), calibration (observed outcome compared to the predicted probability), and the Brier score (composite of discrimination and calibration). Results. The developed algorithms distinguished between patients at high and low risk for 90-day and one-year mortality. The penalized logistic regression algorithm had the best performance metrics for both 90-day (c-statistic 0.80, calibration slope 0.95, calibration intercept -0.06, and Brier score 0.039) and one-year (c-statistic 0.76, calibration slope 0.86, calibration intercept -0.20, and Brier score 0.074) mortality prediction in the hold-out set. Conclusion. Using high-quality data, the ML-based prediction models accurately predicted 90-day and one-year mortality in patients aged 50 years or older with a FNF. The final models must be externally validated to assess generalizability to other populations, and prospectively evaluated in the process of shared decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):168–181

Aims. Previous studies have suggested that selenium as a trace element is involved in bone health, but findings related to the specific effect of selenium on bone health remain inconclusive. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis by including all the relevant studies to elucidate the association between selenium status (dietary intake or serum selenium) and bone health indicators (bone mineral density (BMD), osteoporosis (OP), or fracture). Methods. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to retrieve relevant articles published before 15 November 2022. Studies focusing on the correlation between selenium and BMD, OP, or fracture were included. Effect sizes included regression coefficient (β), weighted mean difference (WMD), and odds ratio (OR). According to heterogeneity, the fixed-effect or random-effect model was used to assess the association between selenium and bone health. Results. From 748 non-duplicate publications, 19 studies were included. We found a significantly positive association between dietary selenium intake (β = 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.07, p = 0.029) as well as serum selenium (β = 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.26, p = 0.046) and BMD. Consistently, those with higher selenium intake had a lower risk of OP (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.72, p = 0.001), and patients with OP had a significantly lower level of serum selenium than healthy controls (WMD = -2.01, 95% CI -3.91 to -0.12, p = 0.037). High dietary selenium intake was associated with a lower risk of hip fracture (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, p < 0.001). Conclusion. Selenium was positively associated with BMD and inversely associated with OP; dietary selenium intake was negatively associated with hip fracture. The causality and therapeutic effect of selenium on OP needs to be investigated in future studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(7):423–432

Aims. Ankle fractures are common injuries and the third most common fragility fracture. In all, 40% of ankle fractures in the frail are open and represent a complex clinical scenario, with morbidity and mortality rates similar to hip fracture patients. They have a higher risk of complications, such as wound infections, malunion, hospital-acquired infections, pressure sores, veno-thromboembolic events, and significant sarcopaenia from prolonged bed rest. Methods. A modified Delphi method was used and a group of experts with a vested interest in best practice were invited from the British Foot and Ankle Society (BOFAS), British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), Orthopaedic Trauma Society (OTS), British Association of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgeons (BAPRAS), British Geriatric Society (BGS), and the British Limb Reconstruction Society (BLRS). Results. In the first stage, there were 36 respondents to the survey, with over 70% stating their unit treats more than 20 such cases per year. There was a 50:50 split regarding if the timing of surgery should be within 36 hours, as per the hip fracture guidelines, or 72 hours, as per the open fracture guidelines. Overall, 75% would attempt primary wound closure and 25% would utilize a local flap. There was no orthopaedic agreement on fixation, and 75% would permit weightbearing immediately. In the second stage, performed at the BLRS meeting, experts discussed the survey results and agreed upon a consensus for the management of open elderly ankle fractures. Conclusion. A mutually agreed consensus from the expert panel was reached to enable the best practice for the management of patients with frailty with an open ankle fracture: 1) all units managing lower limb fragility fractures should do so through a cohorted multidisciplinary pathway. This pathway should follow the standards laid down in the "care of the older or frail orthopaedic trauma patient" British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guideline. These patients have low bone density, and we should recommend full falls and bone health assessment; 2) all open lower limb fragility fractures should be treated in a single stage within 24 hours of injury if possible; 3) all patients with fragility fractures of the lower limb should be considered for mobilisation on the day following surgery; 4) all patients with lower limb open fragility fractures should be considered for tissue sparing, with judicious debridement as a default; 5) all patients with open lower limb fragility fractures should be managed by a consultant plastic surgeon with primary closure wherever possible; and 6) the method of fixation must allow for immediate unrestricted weightbearing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):236–242

1. A brief summary is given of the literature on patients with a dislocated hip and a fractured femur on the same side.

2. One further patient is reported, treated by closed reduction of the hip and the fracture.

3. A warning is given on the frequency with which the dislocation is not diagnosed in this double injury.

The December 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Early hip fracture surgery is safe for patients on direct oral anticoagulants; Time to return to work by occupational class after total hip or knee arthroplasty; Is there a consensus on air travel following hip and knee arthroplasty?; Predicting whether patients will achieve minimal clinically important differences following hip or knee arthroplasty; High-dose dual-antibiotic-loaded cement for hip hemiarthroplasty in the UK (WHiTE 8): a randomized controlled trial; Vitamin E – a positive thing in your poly?; Hydroxapatite-coated femoral stems: is there a difference in fixation?

The February 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Masquelet versus bone transport in infected nonunion of tibia; Hyperbaric Oxygen for Lower Limb Trauma (HOLLT): an international multicentre randomized clinical trial; Is the T-shaped acetabular fracture really a “T”?; What causes cut-out of proximal femur nail anti-rotation device in intertrochanteric fractures?; Is the common femoral artery at risk with percutaneous fragility pelvis fixation?; Anterior pelvic ring pattern predicts displacement in lateral compression fractures; Differences in age-related characteristics among elderly patients with hip fractures

This edition of Cochrane Corner looks at some of the work published by the Cochrane Collaboration, covering pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bleeding in people undergoing definitive fixation or joint replacement for hip, pelvic, and long bone fractures; interventions for reducing red blood cell transfusion in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery: an overview of systematic reviews; and pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

The August 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: A comparison of functional cast and volar-flexion ulnar deviation for dorsally displaced distal radius fractures; Give your stable ankle fractures some AIR!; Early stabilization of rib fractures – an effective thing to do?; Locked plating versus nailing for proximal tibia fractures: A multicentre randomized controlled trial; Time to flap coverage in open tibia fractures; Does tranexamic acid affect the incidence of heterotropic ossification around the elbow?; High BMI – good or bad in surgical fixation of hip fractures?

The April 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Impaction bone grafting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty with the Exeter stem; Effect of preoperative corticosteroids on postoperative glucose control in total joint replacement; Tranexamic acid in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism; Bisphosphonate use may be associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic hip fracture; A balanced approach: exploring the impact of surgical techniques on hip arthroplasty outcomes; A leap forward in hip arthroplasty: dual-mobility bearings reduce groin pain; A new perspective on complications: the link between blood glucose and joint infection risks

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the management and associated outcomes of patients sustaining a femoral hip periprosthetic fracture (PPF) in the UK population. Methods. This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study including adult patients who presented to 27 NHS hospitals with 539 new PPFs between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. Data collected included: management strategy (operative and nonoperative), length of stay, discharge destination, and details of post-treatment outcomes (reoperation, readmission, and 30-day and 12-month mortality). Descriptive analysis by fracture type was performed, and predictors of PPF management and outcomes were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Results. In all, 417 fractures (77%) were managed operatively and 122 (23%) conservatively. The median time to surgery was four days (interquartile range (IQR) 2 to 7). Of those undergoing surgery, 246 (59%) underwent revision and/or fixation and 169 (41%) fixation alone. The surgical strategy used differed by Unified Classification System for PPF type, with the highest rate of revision in B2/B3 fractures (both 77%, 176/228 and 24/31, respectively) and the highest rate of fixation alone in B1- (55/78; 71%) and C-type (49/65; 75%) fractures. Cemented stem fixation (odds ratio (OR) 2.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 4.99); p = 0.002) and B2/B3 fracture type (OR 7.56 (95% CI 4.14 to 13.78); p < 0.001) were predictors of operative management. The median length of stay was 15 days (IQR 9 to 23), 12-month reoperation rate was 5.6% (n = 30), and 30-day readmission rate was 8.4% (n = 45). The 30-day and 12-month mortality rates were 5.2% (n = 28) and 21.0% (n = 113). Nonoperative treatment, older age, male sex, admission from residential or nursing care, and sustaining the PPF around a revision prosthesis were significant predictors of an increased 12-month mortality. Conclusion. Femoral hip PPFs have mortality, reoperation, and readmission rates comparable with hip fracture patients. However, they have a longer wait for surgery, and surgical treatment is more complex. There is a need to create a national framework for data collection for this heterogeneous group of patients in order to understand the outcomes of different approaches to treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):997–1008

The June 2024 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Skin antisepsis before surgical fixation of limb fractures; Comparative analysis of intramedullary nail versus plate fixation for fibula fracture in supination external rotation type IV ankle injury; Early weightbearing versus late weightbearing after intramedullary nailing for distal femoral fracture (AO/OTA 33) in elderly patients: a multicentre propensity-matched study; Long-term outcomes with spinal versus general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery; Operative versus nonoperative management of unstable medial malleolus fractures: a randomized clinical trial; Impact of smoking status on fracture-related infection characteristics and outcomes; Reassessing empirical antimicrobial choices in fracture-related infections; Development and validation of the Nottingham Trauma Frailty Index (NTFI) for older trauma patients

The December 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Distal femoral arthroplasty: medical risks under the spotlight; Quads repair: tunnels or anchors?; Complex trade-offs in treating severe tibial fractures: limb salvage versus primary amputation; Middle-sized posterior malleolus fractures – to fix?; Bone transport through induced membrane: a randomized controlled trial; Displaced geriatric femoral neck fractures; Risk factors for reoperation to promote union in 1,111 distal femur fractures; New versus old – reliability of the OTA/AO classification for trochanteric hip fractures; Risk factors for fracture-related infection after ankle fracture surgery

Aims. To describe the epidemiology of acetabular fractures including patient characteristics, injury mechanisms, fracture patterns, treatment, and mortality. Methods. We retrieved information from the Swedish Fracture Register (SFR) on all patients with acetabular fractures, of the native hip joint in the adult skeleton, sustained between 2014 and 2020. Study variables included patient age, sex, injury date, injury mechanism, fracture classification, treatment, and mortality. Results. In total, 2,132 patients with acetabular fractures from the SFR were included in the study. The majority of the patients were male (62%) and aged over 70 years old (62%). For patients aged > 70 years, the 30-day mortality was 8% and one-year mortality 24%. For patients aged ≤ 70 years, the 30-day mortality was 0.2% and one-year mortality 2%. Low-energy injuries (63%) and anterior wall fractures (20%) were most common. Treatment was most often non-surgical (75%). Conclusion. The majority of patients who sustain an acetabular fracture are elderly (> 70 years), of male sex, and the fracture most commonly occurs after a simple, low-energy fall. Non-surgical treatment is chosen in the majority of acetabular fracture patients. The one-year mortality for elderly patients with acetabular fracture is similar to the mortality after hip fracture, and a similar multidisciplinary approach to care for these patients should be considered. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):652–658

Aims. Few studies have investigated potential consequences of strained surgical resources. The aim of this cohort study was to assess whether a high proportion of concurrent acute surgical admissions, tying up hospital surgical capacity, may lead to delayed surgery and affect mortality for hip fracture patients. Methods. This study investigated time to surgery and 60-day post-admission death of patients 70 years and older admitted for acute hip fracture surgery in Norway between 2008 and 2016. The proportion of hospital capacity being occupied by newly admitted surgical patients was used as the exposure. Hip fracture patients admitted during periods of high proportion of recent admissions were compared with hip fracture patients admitted at the same hospital during the same month, on similar weekdays, and times of the day with fewer admissions. Results. Among 60,072 patients, mean age was 84.6 years (SD 6.8), 78% were females, and median time to surgery was 20 hours (IQR 11 to 29). Overall, 14% (8,464) were dead 60 days after admission. A high (75. th. percentile) proportion of recent surgical admission compared to a low (25. th. percentile) proportion resulted in 20% longer time to surgery (95% confidence interval (CI) 16 to 25) and 20% higher 60-day mortality (hazard ratio 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.4). Conclusion. A high volume of recently admitted acute surgical patients, indicating probable competition for surgical resources, was associated with delayed surgery and increased 60-day mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):264–270

Aims. This study aimed to describe practice variation in the use of total hip arthroplasty (THA) for older patients with femoral neck fracture and to determine the association between patient, surgeon, and institution factors and treatment with THA. Methods. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 49,597 patients aged 60 years and older from Ontario, Canada, who underwent hemiarthroplasty or THA for femoral neck fracture between 2002 and 2017. This population-based study used routinely collected healthcare databases linked through ICES (formerly known as the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences). Multilevel logistic regression modelling was used to quantify the association between patient, surgeon, and institution-level variables and whether patients were treated with THA. Variance partition coefficient and median odds ratios were used to estimate the variation attributable to higher-level variables and the magnitude of effect of higher-level variables, respectively. Results. Over the study period, 9.4% of patients (n = 4,638) were treated with THA. Patient factors associated with higher likelihood of treatment by THA included: younger age, male sex, and diagnosis with rheumatoid arthritis. Long-term care residence, use of home care services prior to hip fracture, diagnosis of dementia, higher comorbidity burden, and the most marginalized group were negatively associated with treatment by THA. Treating surgeon and institution accounted for 54.2% and 17.8% of the total variation in treatment with THA, respectively. Surgeon volume of THA procedures in the 365 days prior to surgery was the strongest higher-level predictor of treatment with THA. Specific treating surgeons and institutions still accounted for significant proportions of the variability in treatment with THA (40.3% and 19.5% of total observed variation, respectively) after controlling for available patient, surgeon, and institution-level variables. Conclusion. The strongest predictors for treatment of patients with femoral neck fracture with THA were patient age, treating surgeon, and treating institution. This practice variation highlights differential access to care for patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):180–189

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