Fractured neck of femur: guidelines and beyond

General versus spinal anaesthesia in proximal femoral fracture surgery - treatment outcomes

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral fractures are a major public health problem because of the increasing proportion of elderly individuals in the general population. The mode of choice for anaesthesia in surgical treatment of these fractures is still debated in terms of better postoperative outcome. The aim of our study was to compare the effect of general over spinal anaesthesia on mortality in proximal femoral fracture surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of 115 patients aged at least 70 years who underwent surgery for proximal femoral fracture. The survey was conducted from 1 January to 31 December 2015 at the General Hospital Karlovac, Croatia. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1 - general anaesthesia and group 2 - spinal anaesthesia. The primary outcome measure was the effect of mode of anaesthesia, general versus spinal, on mortality within 30 days, six months and one year after surgery.

RESULTS

General anaesthesia (EndoTracheal Anaesthesia) was administered in 77 patients (67%; group I - ETA) and spinal anaesthesia in 38 patients (33%; group 2 - SPIN). Both groups had more female than male patients: 69 patients (89.6%) in the ETA group and 32 patients (84.2%) in the SPIN group were female. The mean age in the ETA group was 82.91 years and in the SPIN group was 80.18 years. ASA II status was more common in patients in the SPIN group (25 patients [65.8%]). The average time from hospitalisation to surgery was 53.44 hours in the ETA group and 53.33 hours in the SPIN group. There was no significant difference between groups in the number of comorbidities, or intraoperative and postoperative complications. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between the groups. Mortality after surgery in the ETA and SPIN groups, respectively, was as follows: 10.4% and 10.5% at 30 days, 23.4% and 15.8% at six months, and 32.5% and 31.6% at one year.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that the mode of anaesthesia (general vs spinal) has no effect on postoperative mortality, and that the mode of anaesthesia should be applied on an individual basis in correlation with associated comorbidities.

Outcome by mode of anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. An observational audit of 65 535 patients in a national dataset

Large observational studies of accurate data can provide similar results to more arduous and expensive randomised controlled trials. In 2012, the National Hip Fracture Database extended its dataset to include 'type of anaesthesia' data fields. We analysed 65 535 patient record sets to determine differences in outcome. Type of anaesthesia was recorded in 59 191 (90%) patients. Omitting patients who received both general and spinal anaesthesia or in whom an uncertain type of anaesthesia was recorded, there was no significant difference in either cumulative five-day (2.8% vs 2.8%, p = 0.991) or 30-day (7.0% vs 7.5%, p = 0.053) mortality between 30 130 patients receiving general anaesthesia and 22 999 patients receiving spinal anaesthesia, even when 30-day mortality was adjusted for age and ASA physical status (p = 0.226). Mortality within 24 hours after surgery was significantly higher among patients receiving cemented compared with uncemented hemiarthroplasty (1.6% vs 1.2%, p = 0.030), suggesting excess early mortality related to bone cement implantation syndrome. If these data are accurate, then either there is no difference in 30-day mortality between general and spinal anaesthesia after hip fracture surgery per se, and therefore future research should focus on how to make both types of anaesthesia safer, or there is a difference, but mortality is not the correct outcome to measure after anaesthesia, and therefore future research should focus on differences between general and spinal anaesthesia. These could include more anaesthesia-sensitive outcomes, such as hypotension, pain, postoperative confusion, respiratory infection and mobilisation.

A comparison of clinical practice guidelines for proximal femoral fracture

Clinical practice guidelines are designed to assist clinical decision-making by summarising evidence and forming recommendations. The number of available guidelines is vast and they vary in relevance and quality. We reviewed guidelines relevant to the management of a patient with a fractured neck of femur and explored similarities and conflicts between recommendations. As guidelines are often produced in response to an area of clinical uncertainty, recommendations differ. This can result in a situation where the management of a particular clinical problem will depend upon which guideline is followed. We explore the reasons for such differences.