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. 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.Aims
Patients and Methods
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:
