Aims. Patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) are known to be at increased risk of postoperative complications, but it is unclear whether MetS is also associated with complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Here, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis linking MetS to postoperative complications in THA and TKA. Methods. The PubMed, OVID, and ScienceDirect databases were comprehensively searched and studies were selected and analyzed according to the guidelines of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE). We assessed the methodological quality of each study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and we evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Data were extracted and meta-analyzed or qualitatively synthesized for several outcomes. Results. Ten cohort studies involving 1,352,685 patients were included. Qualitative analysis suggested that MetS was associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular events, and meta-analysis showed that MetS increased the risk of all-cause complications (risk ratio (RR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 1.89), surgical site infection (SSI; RR 2.99, 95% CI 1.30 to 6.90), urinary tract infection (UTI; RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.43), and 30-day readmission (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.59). There was insufficient evidence for assessing an association between MetS and venous thromboembolism events, pulmonary or gastrointestinal complications, or mortality. Conclusion. Patients with MetS undergoing THA and TKA are at increased risk of all-cause complications, cardiovascular complications, SSI, UTI, and 30-day readmission. Surgeons should be aware of the increased risk of these complications in MetS, and presurgical protocols for these complications should give special consideration to MetS patients. Cite this article:Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(3):120–129

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of time to surgical intervention from admission on mortality and morbidity for patients with hip fractures. Methods. MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception to June 2020. Reference lists were manually assessed to identify additional papers. Primary comparative research studies that recruited patients aged over 60 years, with non-pathological primary proximal femoral fractures that were treated surgically, were included. Studies that did not include a group operated on within 24 hours or which reported time to surgery in calendar days were excluded. Two investigators extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. The pre-defined primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality at other time points. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were aggregated and were grouped by study-level characteristics. Results. This review included 46 studies (January 1991 to June 2020), comprising 521,857 hip fractures with 64,047 postoperative deaths. No randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. In a pooled analysis of 15 studies, RR of mortality at 30 days comparing time to surgery < 24 hours with > 24 hours was 0.86 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.91; I. 2. = 69%; 95% CI 50% to 81%; p-value for heterogeneity < 0.001). The association was stronger in observational studies that did not adjust for confounders than in those that adjusted for multiple covariates. In a pooled analysis of six studies, the RR of mortality at 30 days comparing time to surgery < 24 hours with 24 to 36 hours was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.93; I. 2. = 65%; 95% CI 16% to 85%; p-value for heterogeneity = 0.014). Conclusion. This meta-analysis indicates reduced mortality for patients operated within 24 hours compared with those operated on beyond 24 hours or within 24 to 36 hours. Where resources allow and there is no specific reversible contraindication to early surgery, we recommend that hip fractures should be surgically treated within 24 hours. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1176–1186

Aims. Current guidelines recommend surgery within 48 hours among patients presenting with hip fractures; however, optimal surgical timing for patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) remains unclear. Individual studies are limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneous outcomes. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effect of pre-injury OACs on time-to-surgery (TTS) and all-cause mortality among older adults with hip fracture treated surgically. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to 14 October 2019 to identify studies directly comparing outcomes among hip fracture patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) prior to hospital admission to hip fracture patients not on OACs. Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool all outcomes (TTS, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day mortality). Results. A total of 34 studies (involving 39,446 patients) were included in our systematic review. TTS was 13.7 hours longer (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.8 to 17.5; p < 0.001) among hip fracture patients on OACs compared to those not on OACs. This translated to a three-fold higher odds of having surgery beyond the recommended 48 hours from admission (odds ratio (OR) 3.0 (95% CI 2.1 to 4.3); p = 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher (OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.8); p < 0.03) among anticoagulated patients. Among studies comparing anticoagulants, there was no statistically significant difference in time-to-surgery between patients taking a DOAC compared to a VKA. Conclusion. Patients presenting with a hip fracture who were taking OACs prior to injury experience a delay in time-to-surgery and higher mortality than non-anticoagulated patients. Patients on DOACs may be at risk of further delays. Evaluating expedited surgical protocols in hip fracture patients on OACs is an urgent priority, with the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality in this group of high-risk patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):222–233

Aims

Hip fractures are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and malnutrition is a crucial determinant of these outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to determine whether oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) improves postoperative outcomes in older patients with a hip fracture.

Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular (“AI/machine learning”), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1292–1303.