Should hip fractures be operated upon only by specialist hip unit surgeons in order to lower rates of surgical site infection?

Surgical treatment of hip fracture in centenarians: Complications and independent risk factors of death

BACKGROUND

The increase in life expectancy has led to the appearance of a subgroup of hip fracture (HF) patients with special characteristics known as centenarians. The aim of the present study is to analyse the demographic characteristics, complications and mortality rate of this subgroup in order to identify the specific risk factors for mortality in these patients.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 69 patients (58 women and 11 men) aged 100 years or older admitted to a tertiary hospital for HF between 1999 and 2018.

RESULTS

The average age was 101.3 years (100-108, median 101). More than half (62.3%) of all patients presented with extracapsular fractures. The most common complications observed were delirium (52.3%) and urinary retention (27.7%). Haematoma (9.2%) was the most common surgical complication. Only 3 patients (7.3%) changed their place of residence after admission. In-hospital, 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 13.8%, 21.5% and 54.2%, respectively. A high Charlson Comorbidity Index and baseline Functional Ambulation Classification (FAC) <3 were associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR = 1.95 95% CI [1.03-3.69] and OR = 5.7 95% CI [1.2-26.8]), respectively. The presence of more than 3 comorbidities and baseline FAC <3 were associated with a higher risk of 30-day mortality (OR = 6, 95% CI [1.4-24.7] and OR = 4, 95% CI [1.13-14.2]), respectively. Dementia has been associated with a higher risk of 30-day and 1-year mortality (OR = 4.6, 95% CI [1.2-16.7]) and OR = 5.11, 95% CI [1.6-21]) respectively.

CONCLUSION

FAC score, number of comorbidities, dementia and the Charlson Comorbidity Index have been shown to be risk factors of mortality in centenarians with HF.

Perioperative Contamination of Orthopaedic Polyethylene Implants, Targeting Devices and Arthroscopes. Experts' Decision Tree and Literature Review

Introduction Sterility errors during orthopaedic procedures can be stressful for the surgeon or scrub nurse and lead to devastating infectious complications and liability issues. This paper aims to review orthopaedic surgeon practices and propose possible attitudes to adopt.

Methods Out of 1023 questionnaires sent, 170 orthopaedic surgeons answered a Volunteer Feedback Template (multiple-choice test) by SurveyMonkey® (San Mateo, CA, USA) anonymously. The survey questioned surgeon's response to a sterility mistake during a standard total knee joint replacement, trauma surgery and arthroscopic procedure. Those “sterility mistake” situations occurred when there was contamination of 1) a sterile polyethylene (PE) 2) a sterile targeting device, and 3) an arthroscope.

Results When the definitive PE is contaminated, and if a new definitive PE will only be available 2 hours later, 52% of surgeons would wait for the new definitive PE (p<0.001). In the same situation, if a new PE will only be available in 4 hours, the results showed a significant difference favoring two other options: ”putting a definitive PE one size smaller or bigger with balance adjustment” (31%); and “leaving the provisional PE in the joint, closing the wound and re-operating the patient in the coming days when the definitive PE arrives” (29%) (p<0.001). When the new PE is only available 24 hours later results were 34% and 31%, respectively (p<0.001). In the case of a surgical procedure for a classic intertrochanteric fracture, if the carbon fiber targeting device is contaminated, most surgeons (50%) chose to put the nail without the targeting device and finish the surgery (p<0.001). When the arthroscope is desterilized, 39% of participants would wait until the arthroscope has been sterilized again (approximately 2 hours), while 24% would use another procedure (p<0.001). Sixty-two percent of surgeons would adapt their strategy. No clear trend could be identified in terms of antibiotic treatment following a sterility error.

Conclusions There are no established guidelines on how to deal with sterility breaches during surgery and on the antibiotic strategy following the prolonged surgical time resulting from the delay for a new implant. The most common course of action chosen by participating surgeons is detailed in our expert decision tree - if another sterile component is not available within 2 hours - : insertion of another PE size, rescheduling the operation, adapting the surgical technique (for trauma procedures), or soaking the arthroscope in disinfectant solution. As instances of contamination cannot be avoided, it is recommended to have a minimum of two copies of sterile PE implants, arthroscopes or targeting devices readily available before surgery begins-.

Management of elderly hip fractures by an orthopaedic trauma surgeon reduces surgical delays but does not improve outcomes compared to non-trauma surgeons

PURPOSE

Recent literature on hip fractures has focussed on the optimal environment for best outcomes. One factor that has not been studied is the managing surgeon's training background. Our study aims to examine if hip fracture patients managed by fellowship-trained orthopaedic trauma surgeons have better outcomes compared to non-trauma trained general orthopaedic surgeons.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study performed at a tertiary hospital with an established orthogeriatric co-managed hip fracture care pathway. All surgically treated elderly hip fracture patients over a period of 2 years were included and divided into 2 groups based on the managing surgeon: trauma and non-trauma. Patient characteristics, fracture and surgery information, post-operative complications, 1 year mortality and the Modified Barthel Index (MBI) scores were collected and compared.

RESULTS

871 patients were included. 32.1% (N = 280) were managed by trauma surgeons and 67.9% (N = 591) by non-trauma surgeons. There was no significant difference in the MBI scores pre-operatively and at 6 and 12 months post-operatively between the 2 groups. There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications and mortality. However, patients managed by trauma surgeons had significantly shorter time to surgery (p = 0.028) and higher proportion of surgeries performed within 48 h (p = 0.039). Trauma surgeons also took a shorter time to fix intertrochanteric fractures (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not find any difference in the functional outcomes of hip fracture patients managed by trauma surgeons or non-trauma surgeons. However, trauma surgeons had faster times to surgery and shorter surgical times when fixing intertrochanteric fractures.

Trauma surgery by general surgeons: Still an option for proximal femoral fractures?

INTRODUCTION

Surgery for proximal femoral fractures in the Netherlands is performed by trauma surgeons, general surgeons and orthopaedic surgeons. The aim of this study was to assess whether there is a difference in outcome for patients with proximal femoral fractures operated by trauma surgeons versus general surgeons. Secondly, the relation between hospital and surgeon volume and postoperative complications was explored.

METHODS

Patients of 18 years and older were included if operated for a proximal femoral fracture by a trauma surgeon or a general surgeon in two academic, eight teaching and two non-teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from January 2010 until December 2013. The combined endpoint was defined as reoperation or surgical site infection. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for patient and fracture characteristics and hospital and surgeon volume. Categories for hospital volume were>170/year (high volume), 96-170/year (medium volume) and <96/year (low volume).

RESULTS

In 4552 included patients 2382 (52.3%) had surgery by a trauma surgeon. Postoperative complications occurred in 276 (11.6%) patients operated by a trauma surgeon and in 258 (11.9%) operated by a general surgeon (p=0.751). When considering confounders in a multivariate analysis, surgery by trauma surgeons was associated with less postoperative complications (OR 0.746; 95%CI 0.580-0.958; p=0.022). Surgery in high volume hospitals was also associated with less complications (OR 0.997; 95%CI 0.995-0.999; p=0.012). Surgeon volume was not associated with complications (OR 1.008; 95%CI 0.997-1.018; p=0.175).

CONCLUSION

Surgery by trauma surgeons and high hospital volume are associated with less reoperations and surgical site infections for patients with proximal femoral fractures.

Pre-fracture quality of life predicts 1-year survival in elderly patients with hip fracture-development of a new scoring system

Hip fractures are common in elderly people. Despite great progress in surgical care, the outcome of patients with hip fracture remains disappointing. This study determined four prognostic factors (lower ASA score, higher pre-fracture EQ-5D index, higher MMSE score, and female gender) to predict 1-year survival in patients with hip fracture.

INTRODUCTION

This study determined the prognostic factors for 1-year survival in patients with hip fracture. Based on these predictors, a scoring system was developed for use upon patients' admission to the hospital.

METHODS

Hip fracture patients, aged ≥60 years, were prospectively enrolled. Upon admission, patients' sociodemographic data, type of fracture, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, health-related quality of life scores (EQ-5D index) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores were recorded, among other parameters. Correlational analysis was performed on all potential variables to identify relevant predictor variables of 1-year survival. Univariate regression analysis was performed on all selected variables, followed by a multivariate analysis for variables that were significant in the univariate analysis. The final score was developed by converting the β-coefficients of each variable from the multivariate analysis into a scoring system.

RESULTS

For 391 hip fracture patients, complete data were available at the time of the 1-year follow-up. In multivariate regression analysis, independent predictors of 1-year survival were lower ASA score, higher pre-fracture EQ-5D index, higher MMSE score, and female gender. The different variables were weighted according to their β-coefficient to build the prognostic score, which ranged from 0 to 10 points. The ROC curve for 1-year mortality after hip fracture showed an area under the curve of 0.74 (R (2) = 0.272; 95 % CI 0.68-0.79; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

With only four instruments, the new score represents a useful tool for estimating 1-year survival in elderly patients with hip fractures. At present, the score is limited due to a lack of validation. A validation study is currently underway to prove its reliability.

Irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic infections of the hip and factors determining outcome

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to identify the success rate and factors predicting outcome of irrigation and debridement (I&D) in patients with deep periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical characteristics of patients with deep PJI after primary/revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) between January 2000 and May 2013 treated with I&D. Implant retention was the outcome of interest. Sixty patients (29 men and 31 women; mean age 64.9 years) were identified. Mean follow-up was 59 months (range, 12-168).

RESULTS

The implants were retained in 42 patients (70%). Failure of I&D treatment correlated with duration of symptoms >five days (p <0.001) and obesity [body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30)] (p = 0.0289). Treatment outcome was affected by the type of pathogen (p = 0.0482), with patients with methicillin-resistant staphylococci having significantly lower odds of success.

CONCLUSIONS

I&D can be a feasible option in THA patients presenting with acute deep PJI. Duration of symptoms >five days, isolation of methicillin-resistant staphylococci and obesity should be taken into consideration in pre-operative decision making.