Early versus delayed weight-bearing following operatively treated ankle fracture (WAX): a non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After surgery for a broken ankle, patients are usually instructed to avoid walking for 6 weeks (delayed weight-bearing). Walking 2 weeks after surgery (early weight-bearing) might be a safe and preferable rehabilitation strategy. This study aimed to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of an early weight-bearing strategy compared with a delayed weight-bearing strategy. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial including 561 participants (aged ≥18 years) who received acute surgery for an unstable ankle fracture in 23 UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals who were assigned to either a delayed weight-bearing (n=280) or an early weight-bearing rehabilitation strategy (n=281). Patients treated with a hindfoot nail, those who did not have protective ankle sensation (eg, peripheral neuropathy), did not have the capacity to consent, or did not have the ability to adhere to trial procedures were excluded. Neither participants nor clinicians were masked to the treatment. The primary outcome was ankle function measured using the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) at 4 months after randomisation, in the per-protocol population. The pre-specified non-inferiority OMAS margin was -6 points and superiority testing was included in the intention-to-treat population in the event of non-inferiority. The trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN12883981, and the trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Primary outcome data were collected from 480 (86%) of 561 participants. Recruitment was conducted between Jan 13, 2020, and Oct 29, 2021. At 4 months after randomisation, the mean OMAS score was 65·9 in the early weight-bearing and 61·2 in the delayed weight-bearing group and adjusted mean difference was 4·47 (95% CI 0·58 to 8·37, p=0·024; superiority testing adjusted difference 4·42, 95% CI 0·53 to 8·32, p=0·026) in favour of early weight-bearing. 46 (16%) participants in the early weight-bearing group and 39 (14%) in the delayed weight-bearing group had one or more complications (adjusted odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 0·80 to 1·75, p=0·40). The mean costs from the perspective of the NHS and personal social services in the early and delayed weight-bearing groups were £725 and £785, respectively (mean difference -£60 [95% CI -342 to 232]). The probability that early weight-bearing is cost-effective exceeded 80%. INTERPRETATION: An early weight-bearing strategy was found to be clinically non-inferior and highly likely to be cost-effective compared with the current standard of care (delayed weight-bearing). FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), NIHR Barts Biomedical Research Centre, and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley.

Cemented or Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty for Intracapsular Hip Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over the use of bone cement in hip fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty. Only limited data on quality of life after cemented as compared with modern uncemented hemiarthroplasties are available. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing cemented with uncemented hemiarthroplasty in patients 60 years of age or older with an intracapsular hip fracture. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured with the use of utility scores on the EuroQol Group 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire at 4 months after randomization (range of scores, -0.594 to 1, with higher scores indicating better quality of life; range for minimal clinically important difference, 0.050 to 0.075). RESULTS: A total of 610 patients were assigned to undergo cemented hemiarthroplasty and 615 to undergo modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty; follow-up data were available for 71.6% of the patients at 4 months. The mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.371 in patients assigned to the cemented group and 0.315 in those assigned to the uncemented group (adjusted difference, 0.055; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.009 to 0.101; P = 0.02). The between-group difference at 1 month was similar to that at 4 months, but the difference at 12 months was smaller than that at 4 months. Mortality at 12 months was 23.9% in the cemented group and 27.8% in the uncemented group (odds ratio for death, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.05). Periprosthetic fractures occurred in 0.5% and 2.1% of the patients in the respective groups (odds ratio [uncemented vs. cemented], 4.37; 95% CI, 1.19 to 24.00). The incidences of other complications were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients 60 years of age or older with an intracapsular hip fracture, cemented hemiarthroplasty resulted in a modestly but significantly better quality of life and a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture than uncemented hemiarthroplasty. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; WHiTE 5 ISRCTN number, ISRCTN18393176.).

Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and socioeconomic costs of fractures are considerable. The length of time to healing is an important factor in determining a person's recovery after a fracture. Ultrasound may have a therapeutic role in reducing the time to union after fracture by stimulating osteoblasts and other bone-forming proteins. This is an update of a review previously published in February 2014.   OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of low-intensity ultrasound (LIPUS), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFUS) and extracorporeal shockwave therapies (ECSW) as part of the treatment of acute fractures in adults.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase (1980 to March 2022), Orthopaedic Proceedings, trial registers and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs including participants over 18 years of age with acute fractures (complete or stress fractures) treated with either LIPUS, HIFUS or ECSW versus a control or placebo-control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We collected data for the following critical outcomes: participant-reported quality of life, quantitative functional improvement, time to return to normal activities, time to fracture union, pain, delayed or non-union of fracture. We also collected data for treatment-related adverse events. We collected data in the short term (up to three months after surgery) and in the medium term (later than three months after surgery).   MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies, involving 1543 fractures in 1517 participants; two studies were quasi-RCTs. Twenty studies tested LIPUS and one trial tested ECSW; no studies tested HIFUS. Four studies did not report any of the critical outcomes. All studies had unclear or high risk of bias in at least one domain. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency. LIPUS versus control (20 studies, 1459 participants) We found very low-certainty evidence for the effect of LIPUS on Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured by SF-36 at up to one year after surgery for lower limb fractures (mean difference (MD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.85 to 3.97, favours LIPUS; 3 studies, 393 participants). This result was compatible with a clinically important difference of 3 units with both LIPUS or control. There may be little to no difference in time to return to work after people had complete fractures of the upper or lower limbs (MD 1.96 days, 95% CI -2.13 to 6.04, favours control; 2 studies, 370 participants; low-certainty evidence).  There is probably little or no difference in delayed union or non-union up to 12 months after surgery (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.09, favours control; 7 studies, 746 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Although data for delayed and non-union included both upper and lower limbs, we noted that there were no incidences of delayed or non-union in upper limb fractures. We did not pool data for time to fracture union (11 studies, 887 participants; very low-certainty evidence) because of substantial statistical heterogeneity which we could not explain. In upper limb fractures, MDs ranged from 0.32 to 40 fewer days to fracture union with LIPUS. In lower limb fractures, MDs ranged from 88 fewer days to 30 more days to fracture union. We also did not pool data for pain experienced at one month after surgery in people with upper limb fractures (2 studies, 148 participants; very low-certainty evidence) because of substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Using a 10-point visual analogue scale, one study reported less pain with LIPUS (MD -1.7, 95% CI -3.03 to -0.37; 47 participants), and the effect was less precise in the other study (MD -0.4, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.53; 101 participants). We found little or no difference in skin irritation (a possible treatment-related adverse event) between groups but judged the certainty of the evidence from this small study to be very low (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.65; 1 study, 101 participants). No studies reported data for functional recovery. Data for treatment adherence were inconsistently reported across studies, but was generally described to be good. Data for costs were reported for one study, with higher direct costs, as well as combined direct and indirect costs, for LIPUS use. ECSW versus control (1 study, 56 participants) We are uncertain whether ECSW reduces pain at 12 months after surgery in fractures of the lower limb (MD -0.62, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.27, favours ECSW); the difference between pain scores was unlikely to be clinically important, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are also uncertain of the effect of ECSW on delayed or non-union at 12 months because the certainty of this evidence is very low (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.01; 1 study, 57 participants). There were no treatment-related adverse events. This study reported no data for HRQoL, functional recovery, time to return to normal activities, or time to fracture union. In addition, no data were available for adherence or cost. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were uncertain of the effectiveness of ultrasound and shock wave therapy for acute fractures in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), for which few studies reported data. It is probable that LIPUS makes little or no difference to delayed union or non-union. Future trials should be double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials recording validated PROMs and following up all trial participants. Whilst time to union is difficult to measure, the proportion of participants achieving clinical and radiographic union at each follow-up point should be ascertained, alongside adherence with the study protocol and cost of treatment in order to better inform clinical practice.

Interventions for reducing red blood cell transfusion in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Following hip fracture, people sustain an acute blood loss caused by the injury and subsequent surgery. Because the majority of hip fractures occur in older adults, blood loss may be compounded by pre-existing anaemia. Allogenic blood transfusions (ABT) may be given before, during, and after surgery to correct chronic anaemia or acute blood loss. However, there is uncertainty about the benefit-risk ratio for ABT. This is a potentially scarce resource, with availability of blood products sometimes uncertain. Other strategies from Patient Blood Management may prevent or minimise blood loss and avoid administration of ABT. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and other systematic reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, administered perioperatively, on reducing blood loss, anaemia, and the need for ABT in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. METHODS: In January 2022, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions given to prevent or minimise blood loss, treat the effects of anaemia, and reduce the need for ABT, in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. We searched for pharmacological interventions (fibrinogen, factor VIIa and factor XIII, desmopressin, antifibrinolytics, fibrin and non-fibrin sealants and glue, agents to reverse the effects of anticoagulants, erythropoiesis agents, iron, vitamin B12, and folate replacement therapy) and non-pharmacological interventions (surgical approaches to reduce or manage blood loss, intraoperative cell salvage and autologous blood transfusion, temperature management, and oxygen therapy). We used Cochrane methodology, and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR 2. We assessed the degree of overlap of RCTs between reviews. Because overlap was very high, we used a hierarchical approach to select reviews from which to report data; we compared the findings of selected reviews with findings from the other reviews. Outcomes were: number of people requiring ABT, volume of transfused blood (measured as units of packed red blood cells (PRC)), postoperative delirium, adverse events, activities of daily living (ADL), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mortality. MAIN RESULTS: We found 26 systematic reviews including 36 RCTs (3923 participants), which only evaluated tranexamic acid and iron. We found no reviews of other pharmacological interventions or any non-pharmacological interventions. Tranexamic acid (17 reviews, 29 eligible RCTs) We selected reviews with the most recent search date, and which included data for the most outcomes. The methodological quality of these reviews was low. However, the findings were largely consistent across reviews. One review included 24 RCTs, with participants who had internal fixation or arthroplasty for different types of hip fracture. Tranexamic acid was given intravenously or topically during the perioperative period. In this review, based on a control group risk of 451 people per 1000, 194 fewer people per 1000 probably require ABT after receiving tranexamic acid (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.68; 21 studies, 2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty for possible publication bias. Review authors found that there was probably little or no difference in the risks of adverse events, reported as deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.81; 22 studies), pulmonary embolism (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.86; 9 studies), myocardial infarction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.33; 8 studies), cerebrovascular accident (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.70; 8 studies), or death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.46; 10 studies). We judged evidence from these outcomes to be moderate certainty, downgraded for imprecision. Another review, with a similarly broad inclusion criteria, included 10 studies, and found that tranexamic acid probably reduces the volume of transfused PRC (0.53 fewer units, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.80; 7 studies, 813 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty because of unexplained high levels of statistical heterogeneity. No reviews reported outcomes of postoperative delirium, ADL, or HRQoL. Iron (9 reviews, 7 eligible RCTs) Whilst all reviews included studies in hip fracture populations, most also included other surgical populations. The most current, direct evidence was reported in two RCTs, with 403 participants with hip fracture; iron was given intravenously, starting preoperatively. This review did not include evidence for iron with erythropoietin. The methodological quality of this review was low. In this review, there was low-certainty evidence from two studies (403 participants) that there may be little or no difference according to whether intravenous iron was given in: the number of people who required ABT (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11), the volume of transfused blood (MD -0.07 units of PRC, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.17), infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.80), or mortality within 30 days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.13). There may be little or no difference in delirium (25 events in the iron group compared to 26 events in control group; 1 study, 303 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very unsure whether there was any difference in HRQoL, since it was reported without an effect estimate. The findings were largely consistent across reviews. We downgraded the evidence for imprecision, because studies included few participants, and the wide CIs indicated possible benefit and harm. No reviews reported outcomes of cognitive dysfunction, ADL, or HRQoL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid probably reduces the need for ABT in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery, and there is probably little or no difference in adverse events. For iron, there may be little or no difference in overall clinical effects, but this finding is limited by evidence from only a few small studies. Reviews of these treatments did not adequately include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), and evidence for their effectiveness remains incomplete. We were unable to effectively explore the impact of timing and route of administration between reviews. A lack of systematic reviews for other types of pharmacological or any non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the need for ABT indicates a need for further evidence syntheses to explore this. Methodologically sound evidence syntheses should include PROMS within four months of surgery.

Surgical versus non-surgical interventions for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the calcaneus (heel bone) comprise up to 2% of all fractures. These fractures are mostly caused by a fall from a height, and are common in younger adults. Treatment can be surgical or non-surgical; however, there is clinical uncertainty over optimal management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of surgical versus conservative treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trials registers in November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing surgical versus non-surgical management of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures in skeletally mature adults (older than 14 years of age). For surgical treatment, we included closed manipulation with percutaneous wire fixation, open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) with or without bone graft, or primary arthrodesis. For non-surgical treatment, we included ice, elevation and rest, or plaster cast or splint immobilisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We collected data for the following outcomes: function in the short term (within three months of injury) or long term (more than three months after injury), chronic pain, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and ability to return to normal activities, as well as complications which may or may not have led to an unplanned return to theatre. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs with 1097 participants. Sample sizes in studies ranged from 29 to 424 participants. Most participants were male (86%), and the mean age in studies ranged from 28 to 52 years. In the surgical groups, participants were mostly managed with ORIF with plates, screws, or wires; one study used only minimally invasive techniques. Participants in the non-surgical groups were managed with a plaster cast, removable splint or a bandage, or with rest, elevation, and sometimes ice. Risk of performance bias was unavoidably high in all studies as it was not possible to blind participants and personnel to treatment; in addition, some studies were at high or unclear risk of other types of bias (including high risk of selection bias for quasi-RCTs, high risk of attrition bias, and unclear risk of selective reporting bias). We downgraded the certainty of all the evidence for serious risk of bias. We also downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision for all outcomes (except for complications requiring return to theatre for subtalar arthrodesis) because the evidence was derived from few participants. We downgraded the evidence for subtalar arthrodesis for inconsistency because the pooled data included high levels of statistical heterogeneity. We found that surgical management may improve function at six to 24 months after injury when measured using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score (mean difference (MD) 6.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 12.12; 5 studies, 319 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are not aware of a published minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the AOFAS score for this type of fracture. Previously published MCIDs for other foot conditions range from 2.0 to 7.9. No studies reported short-term function within three months of injury. Surgical management may reduce the number of people with chronic pain up to 24 months after injury (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.84; 4 studies, 175 participants; low-certainty evidence); this equates to 295 per 1000 fewer people with pain after surgical management (95% CI 107 to 422 per 1000). Surgical management may also lead to improved physical HRQoL (MD 6.49, 95% CI 2.49 to 10.48; 2 studies, 192 participants; low-certainty evidence). This outcome was measured using the physical component score of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. We used a change in effect of 5% to indicate a clinically important difference for this scoring system and thus judged that the difference in HRQoL between people treated surgically or non-surgically includes both clinically relevant and not relevant changes for those treated surgically. There may be little or no difference in the number of people who returned to work within 24 months (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.68; 5 studies, 250 participants; low-certainty evidence) or who require secondary surgery for subtalar arthrodesis (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 3 studies, 657 participants; low-certainty evidence). For other complications requiring return to theatre in people treated surgically, we found low-certainty evidence for amputation (2.4%; 1 study, 42 participants), implant removal (3.4%; 3 studies, 321 participants), deep infection (5.3%; 1 study, 206 participants), and wound debridement (2.7%; 1 study, 73 participants). We found low-certainty evidence that 14% of participants who were treated surgically (7 studies, 847 participants) had superficial site infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our confidence in the evidence is limited. Although pooled evidence indicated that surgical treatment may lead to improved functional outcome but with an increased risk of unplanned second operations, we judged the evidence to be of low certainty as it was often derived from few participants in studies that were not sufficiently robust in design. We found no evidence of a difference between treatment options in the number of people who needed late reconstruction surgery for subtalar arthritis, although the estimate included the possibility of important harms and benefits. Large, well-conducted studies that attempt to minimise detection bias and that measure functional outcomes using calcaneal-specific measurement tools would increase the confidence in these findings. Given that minimally invasive surgical procedures are already becoming more prevalent in practice, research is urgently needed to determine whether these newer surgical techniques offer better outcomes with regard to function, pain, quality of life, and postoperative complications for intra-articular displaced calcaneal fractures.

Patients' recovery of mobility and return to original residence after hip fracture are associated with multiple modifiable components of hospital service organisation: the REDUCE record-linkage cohort study in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are devastating injuries causing disability, dependence, and institutionalisation, yet hospital care is highly variable. This study aimed to determine hospital organisational factors associated with recovery of mobility and change in patient residence after hip fracture. METHODS: A cohort of patients aged 60 + years in England and Wales, who sustained a hip fracture from 2016 to 2019 was examined. Patient-level Hospital Episodes Statistics, National Hip Fracture Database, and mortality records were linked to 101 factors derived from 18 hospital-level organisational metrics. After adjustment for patient case-mix, multilevel models were used to identify organisational factors associated with patient residence at discharge, and mobility and residence at 120 days after hip fracture. RESULTS: Across 172 hospitals, 165,350 patients survived to discharge, of whom 163,230 (99%) had post-hospital discharge destination recorded. 18,323 (11%) died within 120 days. Among 147,027 survivors, 58,344 (40%) across 143 hospitals had their residence recorded, and 56,959 (39%) across 140 hospitals had their mobility recorded, at 120 days. Nineteen organisational factors independently predicted residence on hospital discharge e.g., return to original residence was 31% (95% confidence interval, CI:17-43%) more likely if the anaesthetic lead for hip fracture had time allocated in their job plan, and 8-13% more likely if hip fracture service clinical governance meetings were attended by an orthopaedic surgeon, physiotherapist or anaesthetist. Seven organisational factors independently predicted residence at 120 days. Patients returning to their pre-fracture residence was 26% (95%CI:4-42%) more likely if hospitals had a dedicated hip fracture ward, and 20% (95%CI:8-30%) more likely if treatment plans were proactively discussed with patients and families on admission. Seventeen organisational factors predicted mobility at 120 days. More patients re-attained their pre-fracture mobility in hospitals where (i) care involved an orthogeriatrician (15% [95%CI:1-28%] improvement), (ii) general anaesthesia was usually accompanied by a nerve block (7% [95%CI:1-12%], and (iii) bedside haemoglobin testing was routine in theatre recovery (13% [95%CI:6-20%]). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple, potentially modifiable, organisational factors are associated with patient outcomes up to 120 days after a hip fracture, these factors if causal should be targeted by service improvement initiatives to reduce variability, improve hospital hip fracture care, and maximise patient independence.

Acute versus delayed total hip arthroplasty after acetabular fracture fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) is a disabling complication of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for acetabular fractures. There is a trend towards acute total hip arthroplasty (THA), 'fix-and-replace', in patients considered to have a poor prognosis and likelihood of PTOA. Controversy remains between early fix-and-replace, versus delayed THA as required after initial ORIF. This systematic review included studies comparing functional and clinical outcomes between acute versus delayed THA after displaced acetabular fractures. METHODS: Comprehensive searches following the PRISMA guideline were performed on six databases for articles in English published anytime up to 29 March 2021. Two authors screened articles and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Patient demographics, fracture classification, functional and clinical outcomes were compiled and analysed. RESULTS: The search yielded 2770 unique studies, of which five retrospective studies were identified with a total of 255 patients. Of them, 138 (54.1%) were treated with acute and 117 (45.9%) treated with delayed THA. Delayed THA group represented a younger cohort compared to the acute group (mean age, 64.3 vs 73.3). The mean follow-up time for the acute and delayed group was 23 and 50 months, respectively. There was no difference in functional outcomes between the two study groups. Complication and mortality rates were comparable. Delayed THA had a higher revision rate compared to the acute group (17.1 vs 4.3%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Fix-and-replace had functional outcomes and complication rates similar to ORIF and delayed THA, but lower revision rates. Although the quality of studies was mixed, sufficient equipoise now exists to justify randomised studies in this area. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021235730.

Multiple hospital organisational factors are associated with adverse patient outcomes post-hip fracture in England and Wales: the REDUCE record-linkage cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite established standards and guidelines, substantial variation remains in the delivery of hip fracture care across the United Kingdom. We aimed to determine which hospital-level organisational factors predict adverse patient outcomes in the months following hip fracture. METHODS: We examined a national record-linkage cohort of 178,757 patients aged ≥60 years who sustained a hip fracture in England and Wales in 2016-19. Patient-level hospital admissions datasets, National Hip Fracture Database and mortality data were linked to metrics from 18 hospital-level organisational-level audits and reports. Multilevel models identified organisational factors, independent of patient case-mix, associated with three patient outcomes: length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day all-cause mortality and emergency 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Across hospitals mean LOS ranged from 12 to 41.9 days, mean 30-day mortality from 3.7 to 10.4% and mean readmission rates from 3.7 to 30.3%, overall means were 21.4 days, 7.3% and 15.3%, respectively. In all, 22 organisational factors were independently associated with LOS; e.g. a hospital's ability to mobilise >90% of patients promptly after surgery predicted a 2-day shorter LOS (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-2.6). Ten organisational factors were independently associated with 30-day mortality; e.g. discussion of patient experience feedback at clinical governance meetings and provision of prompt surgery to >80% of patients were each associated with 10% lower mortality (95%CI: 5-15%). Nine organisational factors were independently associated with readmissions; e.g. readmissions were 17% lower if hospitals reported how soon community therapy would start after discharge (95%CI: 9-24%). CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of hip fracture care should be reliable and equitable across the country. We have identified multiple, potentially modifiable, organisational factors associated with important patient outcomes following hip fracture.

Interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the distal femur (the far end of the thigh bone just above the knee) are a considerable cause of morbidity. Various different surgical and non-surgical treatments have been used in the management of these injuries but the best treatment remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in adults comparing interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur. Interventions included surgical implants (retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN), fixed-angle devices, non-locking plate fixation, locking plate, internal fixation, distal femoral replacement, mono-axial plates, poly-axial plates and condylar buttress plates) and non-surgical management. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our critical outcomes were validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), direct adverse events, participant-reported quality of life (QoL) and pain scores. Our other important outcomes were adverse events indirectly related to intervention, symptomatic non-union, malunion and resource use. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies with 753 participants: 13 studies compared different surgical interventions, and one study compared surgical with non-surgical management. Here, we report the effects for RIMN compared with locking plates. Three studies (221 participants) reported this comparison; it included the largest study population and these are the two most commonly used devices in contemporary orthopaedic trauma practice. Studies used three different tools to assess PROMs. We found very-low certainty evidence for lower Disability Rating Index scores after RIMN at short-term follow-up favouring RIMN (mean difference (MD) -21.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -38.16 to -5.64; 1 study, 12 participants) and low-certainty evidence of little or no difference at long-term follow-up (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.06; 2 studies, 198 participants). Re-expressing the SMD of the long-term follow-up data to Knee Society Score (KSS) used by one study found no clinical benefit of RIMN, based on a minimal clinically important difference of 9 points (MD 2.47, 95% CI -6.18 to 0.74). The effect on QoL was very uncertain at four months (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.44; 1 study, 14 participants) and one year (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.21; 1 study, 156 participants); this evidence was very low certainty. For direct adverse events, studies reported reoperation, loss of fixation, superficial and deep infection, haematoma formation and implant loosening. Effects for all events were imprecise with the possibility of benefit or harm for both treatments. We considered reoperation the most clinically relevant. There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in reoperation between the two implants (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.00; 1 study, 104 participants). No studies reported pain.  For other important outcomes, we noted that people treated with RIMN may be more likely to have varus/valgus deformity (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.37; 1 study, 33 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we found no evidence of any important differences between treatments in terms of bony union, indirect adverse events, or resource use. Other comparisons of surgical interventions included in the review were: RIMN versus single fixed-angle device (3 studies, 175 participants); RIMN versus non-locking plate fixation (1 study, 18 participants); locking plate versus single fixed-angle device (2 studies, 130 participants); internal fixation versus distal femoral replacement (1 study, 23 participants); mono-axial plates versus poly-axial plates (2 studies, 67 participants); mono-axial plate versus condylar buttress plate (1 study, 78 participants). The certainty of the evidence for outcomes in these comparisons was low to very low, and most effect estimates were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the major limitations of the available evidence concerning current treatment interventions for fractures of the distal femur. The currently available evidence is incomplete and insufficient to inform clinical practice. Priority should be given to randomised controlled trials comparing contemporary treatments for people with fractures of the distal femur. At a minimum, these should report validated patient-reported functional and quality-of-life outcomes at one and two years, with an agreed core outcome set. All trials should be reported in full using the CONSORT guidelines.

Surgical interventions for treating intracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a considerable challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising rapidly. The majority of intracapsular hip fractures are treated surgically. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of all surgical treatments used in the management of intracapsular hip fractures in older adults, using a network meta-analysis of randomised trials, and to generate a hierarchy of interventions according to their outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and five other databases in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted backward-citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different treatments for fragility intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included total hip arthroplasties (THAs), hemiarthroplasties (HAs), internal fixation, and non-operative treatments. We excluded studies of people with hip fracture with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or resulting from high-energy trauma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for three outcomes at different time points: mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - both reported within 4 months, at 12 months, and after 24 months of surgery, and unplanned return to theatre (at end of study follow-up). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with Stata software, using frequentist methods, and calculated the differences between treatments using risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed direct comparisons using the same codes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 119 studies (102 RCTS, 17 quasi-RCTs) with 17,653 participants with 17,669 intracapsular fractures in the review; 83% of fractures were displaced. The mean participant age ranged from 60 to 87 years and 73% were women.  After discussion with clinical experts, we selected 12 nodes that represented the best balance between clinical plausibility and efficiency of the networks: cemented modern unipolar HA, dynamic fixed angle plate, uncemented first-generation bipolar HA, uncemented modern bipolar HA, cemented modern bipolar HA, uncemented first-generation unipolar HA, uncemented modern unipolar HA, THA with single articulation, dual-mobility THA, pins, screws, and non-operative treatment. Seventy-five studies (with 11,855 participants) with data for at least two of these treatments contributed to the NMA. We selected cemented modern unipolar HA as a reference treatment against which other treatments were compared. This was a common treatment in the networks, providing a clinically appropriate comparison. In order to provide a concise summary of the results, we report only network estimates when there was evidence of difference between treatments. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious and very serious risks of bias and when estimates included possible transitivity, particularly for internal fixation which included more undisplaced fractures. We also downgraded for incoherence, or inconsistency in indirect estimates, although this affected few estimates. Most estimates included the possibility of benefits and harms, and we downgraded the evidence for these treatments for imprecision.  We found that cemented modern unipolar HA, dynamic fixed angle plate and pins seemed to have the greatest likelihood of reducing mortality at 12 months. Overall, 23.5% of participants who received the reference treatment died within 12 months of surgery. Uncemented modern bipolar HA had higher mortality than the reference treatment (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.85; derived only from indirect evidence; low-certainty evidence), and THA with single articulation also had higher mortality (network estimate RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.32; derived from direct evidence from 2 studies with 225 participants, and indirect evidence; very low-certainty evidence). In the remaining treatments, the certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low, and we noted no evidence of any differences in mortality at 12 months.  We found that THA (single articulation), cemented modern bipolar HA and uncemented modern bipolar HA seemed to have the greatest likelihood of improving HRQoL at 12 months. This network was comparatively sparse compared to other outcomes and the certainty of the evidence of differences between treatments was very low. We noted no evidence of any differences in HRQoL at 12 months, although estimates were imprecise. We found that arthroplasty treatments seemed to have a greater likelihood of reducing unplanned return to theatre than internal fixation and non-operative treatment. We estimated that 4.3% of participants who received the reference treatment returned to theatre during the study follow-up. Compared to this treatment, we found low-certainty evidence that more participants returned to theatre if they were treated with a dynamic fixed angle plate (network estimate RR 4.63, 95% CI 2.94 to 7.30; from direct evidence from 1 study with 190 participants, and indirect evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence that more participants returned to theatre when treated with pins (RR 4.16, 95% CI 2.53 to 6.84; only from indirect evidence), screws (network estimate RR 5.04, 95% CI 3.25 to 7.82; from direct evidence from 2 studies with 278 participants, and indirect evidence), and non-operative treatment (RR 5.41, 95% CI 1.80 to 16.26; only from indirect evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of a tendency for an increased risk of unplanned return to theatre for all of the arthroplasty treatments, and in particular for THA, compared with cemented modern unipolar HA, with little evidence to suggest the size of this difference varied strongly between the arthroplasty treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variability in the ranking of each treatment such that there was no one outstanding, or subset of outstanding, superior treatments. However, cemented modern arthroplasties tended to more often yield better outcomes than alternative treatments and may be a more successful approach than internal fixation. There is no evidence of a difference between THA (single articulation) and cemented modern unipolar HA in the outcomes measured in this review. THA may be an appropriate treatment for a subset of people with intracapsular fracture but we have not explored this further.

Arthroplasties for hip fracture in adults.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a huge challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising rapidly. The majority of hip fractures are treated surgically. This review evaluates evidence for types of arthroplasty: hemiarthroplasties (HAs), which replace part of the hip joint; and total hip arthroplasties (THAs), which replace all of it. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of different designs, articulations, and fixation techniques of arthroplasties for treating hip fractures in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and one trials register in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different arthroplasties for treating fragility intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included THAs and HAs inserted with or without cement, and comparisons between different articulations, sizes, and types of prostheses. We excluded studies of people with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis and with hip fractures resulting from high-energy trauma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for seven outcomes: activities of daily living, functional status, health-related quality of life, mobility (all early: within four months of surgery), early mortality and at 12 months after surgery, delirium, and unplanned return to theatre at the end of follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included 58 studies (50 RCTs, 8 quasi-RCTs) with 10,654 participants with 10,662 fractures. All studies reported intracapsular fractures, except one study of extracapsular fractures. The mean age of participants in the studies ranged from 63 years to 87 years, and 71% were women. We report here the findings of three comparisons that represent the most substantial body of evidence in the review. Other comparisons were also reported, but with many fewer participants. All studies had unclear risks of bias in at least one domain and were at high risk of detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of many outcomes for imprecision, and for risks of bias where sensitivity analysis indicated that bias sometimes influenced the size or direction of the effect estimate. HA: cemented versus uncemented (17 studies, 3644 participants) There was moderate-certainty evidence of a benefit with cemented HA consistent with clinically small to large differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; 3 studies, 1122 participants), and reduction in the risk of mortality at 12 months (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96; 15 studies, 3727 participants). We found moderate-certainty evidence of little or no difference in performance of activities of daily living (ADL) (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.16; 4 studies, 1275 participants), and independent mobility (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14; 3 studies, 980 participants). We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in delirium (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.06; 2 studies, 800 participants), early mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13; 12 studies, 3136 participants) or unplanned return to theatre (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 6 studies, 2336 participants). For functional status, there was very low-certainty evidence showing no clinically important differences. The risks of most adverse events were similar. However, cemented HAs led to less periprosthetic fractures intraoperatively (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.46; 7 studies, 1669 participants) and postoperatively (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 studies, 2819 participants), but had a higher risk of pulmonary embolus (RR 3.56, 95% CI 1.26 to 10.11, 6 studies, 2499 participants). Bipolar HA versus unipolar HA (13 studies, 1499 participants) We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between bipolar and unipolar HAs in early mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.64; 4 studies, 573 participants) and 12-month mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.53; 8 studies, 839 participants). We are unsure of the effect for delirium, HRQoL, and unplanned return to theatre, which all indicated little or no difference between articulation, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. No studies reported on early ADL, functional status and mobility. The overall risk of adverse events was similar. The absolute risk of dislocation was low (approximately 1.6%) and there was no evidence of any difference between treatments. THA versus HA (17 studies, 3232 participants) The difference in the risk of mortality at 12 months was consistent with clinically relevant benefits and harms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.22; 11 studies, 2667 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in unplanned return to theatre, but this effect estimate includes clinically relevant benefits of THA (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.07, favours THA; 10 studies, 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between THA and HA in delirium (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; 2 studies, 357 participants), and mobility (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.16, favours THA; 1 study, 83 participants). We are unsure of the effect for early functional status, ADL, HRQoL, and mortality, which indicated little or no difference between interventions, because the certainty of the evidence was very low.  The overall risks of adverse events were similar. There was an increased risk of dislocation with THA (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.27; 12 studies, 2719 participants) and no evidence of a difference in deep infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people undergoing HA for intracapsular hip fracture, it is likely that a cemented prosthesis will yield an improved global outcome, particularly in terms of HRQoL and mortality. There is no evidence to suggest a bipolar HA is superior to a unipolar prosthesis. Any benefit of THA compared with hemiarthroplasty is likely to be small and not clinically appreciable. We encourage researchers to focus on alternative implants in current clinical practice, such as dual-mobility bearings, for which there is limited available evidence.

Cephalomedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a substantial challenge and burden to patients, healthcare systems and society. The increased proportion of older adults in the world population means that the absolute number of hip fractures is rising rapidly across the globe. Most hip fractures are treated surgically. This Cochrane Review evaluates evidence for implants used to treat extracapsular hip fractures. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects of cephalomedullary nails versus extramedullary fixation implants for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and the National Technical Information Service in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles, and conducted backward-citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing cephalomedullary nails with extramedullary implants for treating fragility extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We excluded studies in which all or most fractures were caused by a high-energy trauma or specific pathologies other than osteoporosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for seven critical outcomes: performance of activities of daily living (ADL), delirium, functional status, health-related quality of life, mobility, mortality (reported within four months of surgery as 'early mortality'; and reported from four months onwards, with priority given to data at 12 months, as '12 months since surgery'), and unplanned return to theatre for treating a complication resulting directly or indirectly from the primary procedure (such as deep infection or non-union). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes using GRADE.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 76 studies (66 RCTs, 10 quasi-RCTs) with a total of 10,979 participants with 10,988 extracapsular hip fractures. The mean ages of participants in the studies ranged from 54 to 85 years; 72% were women. Seventeen studies included unstable trochanteric fractures; three included stable trochanteric fractures only; one included only subtrochanteric fractures; and other studies included a mix of fracture types. More than half of the studies were conducted before 2010. Owing to limitations in the quality of reporting, we could not easily judge whether care pathways in these older studies were comparable to current standards of care. We downgraded the certainty of the outcomes because of high or unclear risk of bias; imprecision (when data were available from insufficient numbers of participants or the confidence interval (CI) was wide); and inconsistency (when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity or differences between findings when outcomes were reported using other measurement tools). There is probably little or no difference between cephalomedullary nails and extramedullary implants in terms of mortality within four months of surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; 30 studies, 4603 participants) and at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; 47 studies, 7618 participants); this evidence was assessed to be of moderate certainty. We found low-certainty evidence for differences in unplanned return to theatre but this was imprecise and included clinically relevant benefits and harms (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 50 studies, 8398 participants). The effect estimate for functional status at four months also included clinically relevant benefits and harms; this evidence was derived from only two small studies and was imprecise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.30; 188 participants; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the estimate for delirium was imprecise (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.22; 5 studies, 1310 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mobility at four months was reported using different measures (such as the number of people with independent mobility or scores on a mobility scale); findings were not consistent between these measures and we could not be certain of the evidence for this outcome. We were also uncertain of the findings for performance in ADL at four months; we did not pool the data from four studies because of substantial heterogeneity. We found no data for health-related quality of life at four months. Using a cephalomedullary nail in preference to an extramedullary device saves one superficial infection per 303 patients (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 35 studies, 5087 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and leads to fewer non-unions (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.96; 40 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the risk of intraoperative implant-related fractures was greater with cephalomedullary nails (RR 2.94, 95% CI 1.65 to 5.24; 35 studies, 4872 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), as was the risk of later fractures (RR 3.62, 95% CI 2.07 to 6.33; 46 studies, 7021 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Cephalomedullary nails caused one additional implant-related fracture per 67 participants. We noted no evidence of a difference in other adverse events related or unrelated to the implant, fracture or both. Subgroup analyses provided no evidence of differences between the length of cephalomedullary nail used, the stability of the fracture, or between newer and older designs of cephalomedullary nail. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Extramedullary devices, most commonly the sliding hip screw, yield very similar functional outcomes to cephalomedullary devices in the management of extracapsular fragility hip fractures. There is a reduced risk of infection and non-union with cephalomedullary nails, however there is an increased risk of implant-related fracture that is not attenuated with newer designs. Few studies considered patient-relevant outcomes such as performance of activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, mobility, or delirium. This emphasises the need to include the core outcome set for hip fracture in future RCTs.

Timing of antibiotic administration, wound debridement, and the stages of reconstructive surgery for open long bone fractures of the upper and lower limbs.

BACKGROUND: Open fractures of the major long bones are complex limb-threatening injuries that are predisposed to deep infection. Treatment includes antibiotics and surgery to debride the wound, stabilise the fracture and reconstruct any soft tissue defect to enable infection-free bone repair. There is a need to assess the effect of timing and duration of antibiotic administration and timing and staging of surgical interventions to optimise outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (risks and benefits) of the timing of antibiotic administration, wound debridement and the stages of surgical interventions in managing people with open long bone fractures of the upper and lower limbs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trial registers in February 2021. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that recruited adults with open fractures of the major long bones, comparing: 1) timings of prophylactic antibiotic treatment, 2) duration of prophylactic antibiotic treatment, 3) timing of wound debridement following injury or 4) timing of the stages of reconstructive surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We aimed to collect data for the following outcomes: limb function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), deep surgical site infection, delayed or non-union, adverse events (in the short- and long-term course of recovery), and resource-related outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs of 613 randomised participants with 617 open fractures. Studies were conducted in medical and trauma centres in the USA and Kenya. Where reported, there was a higher proportion of men and a mean age of participants between 30 and 34 years old. Fractures were in the upper and lower limbs in one study, and were tibia fractures in two studies; where reported, these were the result of high-energy trauma such as road traffic accidents. No studies compared the timing of antibiotic treatment or wound debridement. Duration of prophylactic antibiotic treatment (1 study, 77 participants available for analysis) One study compared antibiotic treatment for 24 hours with antibiotic treatment for five days. We are very uncertain about the effects of different durations of antibiotic treatment on superficial infections (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.87, favours 5 day treatment; 1 study, 77 participants); this was very low-certainty evidence derived from one small study with unclear and high risks of bias, and with an imprecise effect estimate. This study reported no other review outcomes. Reconstructive surgery: timing of the stages of surgery (2 studies, 458 participants available for analysis) Two studies compared the timing of wound closure, which was completed immediately or delayed. In one study, the mean time of delay was 5.9 days; in the other study, the time of delay was not reported. We are very uncertain about the effects of different timings of wound closure on deep infections (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.80, favours immediate closure; 2 studies, 458 participants), delayed union or non-union (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.55, favours delayed closure; 1 study, 387 participants), or superficial infections (RR 6.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 120.43, favours delayed closure; 1 study, 71 participants); this was very low-certainty evidence. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for very serious risks of bias because both studies had unclear and high risks of bias. We also downgraded for serious imprecision because effect estimates were imprecise, including the possibility of benefits as well as harms, and very serious imprecision when the data were derived from single small study. These studies reported no other review outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We could not determine the risks and benefits of different treatment protocols for open long bone fractures because the evidence was very uncertain for the two comparisons and we did not find any studies addressing the other possible comparisons. Well-designed randomised trials with adequate power are needed to guide surgical and antibiotic treatment of open fractures, particularly with regard to timing and duration of antibiotic administration and timing and staging of surgery.

Surgical interventions for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising. The majority of extracapsular hip fractures are treated surgically. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of all surgical treatments used in the management of extracapsular hip fractures in older adults, using a network meta-analysis of randomised trials, and to generate a hierarchy of interventions according to their outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and five other databases in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different treatments for fragility extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included internal and external fixation, arthroplasties and non-operative treatment. We excluded studies of hip fractures with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or resulting from high-energy trauma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for three outcomes at different time points: mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - both reported within 4 months, at 12 months and after 24 months of surgery, and unplanned return to theatre (at end of study follow-up). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with Stata software, using frequentist methods, and calculated the differences between treatments using risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed direct comparisons using the same codes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 184 studies (160 RCTs and 24 quasi-RCTs) with 26,073 participants with 26,086 extracapsular hip fractures in the review. The mean age in most studies ranged from 60 to 93 years, and 69% were women. After discussion with clinical experts, we selected nine nodes that represented the best balance between clinical plausibility and efficiency of the networks: fixed angle plate (dynamic and static), cephalomedullary nail (short and long), condylocephalic nail, external fixation, hemiarthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty (THA) and non-operative treatment. Seventy-three studies (with 11,126 participants) with data for at least two of these treatments contributed to the NMA. We selected the dynamic fixed angle plate as a reference treatment against which other treatments were compared. This was a common treatment in the networks, providing a clinically appropriate comparison.  We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious and very serious risks of bias, and because some of the estimates included the possibility of transitivity owing to the proportion of stable and unstable fractures between treatment comparisons. We also downgraded if we noted evidence of inconsistency in direct or indirect estimates from which the network estimate was derived. Most estimates included the possibility of benefits and harms, and we downgraded the evidence for these treatments for imprecision.  Overall, 20.2% of participants who received the reference treatment had died by 12 months after surgery. We noted no evidence of any differences in mortality at this time point between the treatments compared. Effect estimates of all treatments included plausible benefits as well as harms. Short cephalomedullary nails had the narrowest confidence interval (CI), with 7 fewer deaths (26 fewer to 15 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07). THA had the widest CI, with 62 fewer deaths (177 fewer to 610 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.03). The certainty of the evidence for all treatments was low to very low. Although we ranked the treatments, this ranking should be interpreted cautiously because of the imprecision in all the network estimates for these treatments. Overall, 4.3% of participants who received the reference treatment had unplanned return to theatre. Compared to this treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence that 58 more participants (14 to 137 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if they were treated with a static fixed angle plate (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.50), and 91 more participants (37 to 182 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if treated with a condylocephalic nail (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.95 to 5.68). We also found that these treatments were ranked as having the highest probability of unplanned return to theatre. In the remaining treatments, we noted no evidence of any differences in unplanned return to theatre, with effect estimates including benefits as well as harms. The certainty of the evidence for these other treatments ranged from low to very low. We did not use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for early mortality, but our findings were similar to those for 12-month mortality, with no evidence of any differences in treatments when compared to dynamic fixed angle plate. Very few studies reported HRQoL and we were unable to build networks from these studies and perform network meta-analysis.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Across the networks, we found that there was considerable variability in the ranking of each treatment such that there was no one outstanding, or subset of outstanding, superior treatments. However, static implants such as condylocephalic nails and static fixed angle plates did yield a higher risk of unplanned return to theatre. We had insufficient evidence to determine the effects of any treatments on HRQoL, and this review includes data for only two outcomes. More detailed pairwise comparisons of some of the included treatments are reported in other Cochrane Reviews in this series. Short cephalomedullary nails versus dynamic fixed angle plates contributed the most evidence to each network, and our findings indicate that there may be no difference between these treatments. These data included people with both stable and unstable extracapsular fractures. At this time, there are too few studies to draw any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of arthroplasty or external fixation for extracapsular fracture in older adults. Future research could focus on the benefits and harms of arthroplasty interventions compared with internal fixation using a dynamic implant.

Internal fixation implants for intracapsular hip fractures in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a huge challenge and burden to patients, healthcare systems and society. The increased proportion of older adults in the world population means that the absolute number of hip fractures is rising rapidly across the globe. The majority of hip fractures are treated surgically. This review evaluates evidence for types of internal fixation implants used in joint-preserving surgery for intracapsular hip fractures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative effects (benefits and harms) of different implants for the internal fixation of intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, and National Technical Information Service in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted backward-citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing implants used for internal fixation of fragility intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in older adults. Types of implants were smooth pins (these include pins with fold-out hooks), screws, or fixed angle plates. We excluded studies in which all or most fractures were caused by specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or were the result of a high energy trauma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for seven outcomes: activities of daily living (ADL), delirium, functional status, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mobility, mortality (reported within four months of surgery as early mortality, and at 12 months since surgery), and unplanned return to theatre for treating a complication resulting directly or indirectly from the primary procedure (such as deep infection or non-union). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 studies (32 RCTs, six quasi-RCTs) with 8585 participants with 8590 intracapsular fractures. The mean ages of participants in the studies ranged from 60 to 84 years; 73% were women, and 38% of fractures were undisplaced. We report here the findings of the four main comparisons, which were between different categories of implants. We downgraded the certainty of the outcomes for imprecision (when data were available from insufficient numbers of participants or the confidence interval (CI) was wide), study limitations (e.g. high or unclear risks of bias), and inconsistency (when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity). Smooth pins versus fixed angle plate (four studies, 1313 participants) We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in independent mobility with no more than one walking stick (1 study, 112 participants), early mortality (1 study, 383 participants), mortality at 12 months (2 studies, 661 participants), and unplanned return to theatre (3 studies, 736 participants). No studies reported on ADL, delirium, functional status, or HRQoL. Screws versus fixed angle plates (11 studies, 2471 participants) We found low-certainty evidence of no clinically important differences between the two implant types in functional status using WOMAC (MD -3.18, 95% CI -6.35 to -0.01; 2 studies, 498 participants; range of scores from 0 to 96, lower values indicate better function), and HRQoL using EQ-5D (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 2 studies, 521 participants; range -0.654 (worst), 0 (dead), 1 (best)). We also found low-certainty evidence showing little or no difference between the two implant types in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.31; 7 studies, 1690 participants), and unplanned return to theatre (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.26; 11 studies, 2321 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in independent mobility (1 study, 70 participants), and early mortality (3 studies, 467 participants). No studies reported on ADL or delirium. Screws versus smooth pins (seven studies, 1119 participants) We found low-certainty evidence of no or little difference between the two implant types in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1005 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in early mortality (3 studies, 584 participants) and unplanned return to theatre (5 studies, 862 participants). No studies reported on ADL, delirium, functional status, HRQoL, or mobility. Screws or smooth pins versus fixed angle plates (15 studies, 3784 participants) In this comparison, we combined data from the first two comparison groups. We found low-certainty evidence of no or little difference between the two groups of implants in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI.083 to 1.31; 7 studies, 1690 participants) and unplanned return to theatre (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; 14 studies, 3057 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two groups of implants in independent mobility (2 studies, 182 participants), and early mortality (4 studies, 850 participants). We found no additional evidence to support the findings for functional status or HRQoL as reported in 'Screws versus fixed angle plates'. No studies reported ADL or delirium. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between screws and fixed angle plates in functional status, HRQoL, mortality at 12 months, or unplanned return to theatre; and between screws and pins in mortality at 12 months. The limited and very low-certainty evidence for the outcomes for which data were available for the smooth pins versus fixed angle plates comparison, as well as the other outcomes for which data were available for the screws and fixed angle plates, and screws and pins comparisons means we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect for these outcomes. Additional RCTs would increase the certainty of the evidence. We encourage such studies to report outcomes consistent with the core outcome set for hip fracture, including long-term quality of life indicators such as ADL and mobility.

THA for a Fractured Femoral Neck: Comparing the Revision and Dislocation Rates of Standard-head, Large-head, Dual-mobility, and Constrained Liners.

BACKGROUND: THA is a reasonable surgical option for some patients with fragility fractures of the femoral neck, but it has the risk of prosthesis dislocation. The prosthesis combination that reduces the risk of dislocation and the rate of revision surgery is not known. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In patients receiving primary THA for a femoral neck fracture, does (1) the rate of all-cause revision or (2) the reason for revision and rate of revision for dislocation differ among THA with a standard head size, large head size, dual mobility (DM), or constrained liner? (3) Is there a difference in the revision risk when patients are stratified by age at the time of surgery? METHODS: Data were analyzed for 16,692 THAs performed to treat fractures of the femoral neck reported in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from January 2008 to December 2018, as this included the first use of DM prostheses. The AOANJRR includes information on more than 98% of arthroplasty procedures performed in Australia. Most patients were female (72%) and the mean age was 74 years ± 11. There were 8582 standard-head prostheses, 5820 large-head prostheses, 1778 DM prostheses, and 512 constrained prostheses identified. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined for all causes as well as CPR for dislocation. The time to the first revision was described using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship, with right censoring for death or closure of the database at the time of analysis. The unadjusted CPR was estimated each year of the first 10 years for standard heads, 10 years for large heads, 8 years for constrained liners, and 7 years for DM prostheses, with 95% confidence intervals using unadjusted pointwise Greenwood estimates. The results were adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation, and head size where appropriate and were considered by age groups < 70 and ≥ 70 years. RESULTS: When adjusted for age, sex, femoral fixation and head size, there was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision at 7 years for any of the four groups. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision when patients were stratified by < 70 or ≥ 70 years of age. Dislocation was the most common reason for revision (32%). When analyzing revision for dislocation alone, large-head THA had a lower rate of revision for dislocation compared with standard head (HR 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and DM prostheses had a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard head for the first 3 months (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.7]; p < 0.004) but not after this time point. CONCLUSION: The Australian registry shows that there is no difference in the rate of all-cause revision for standard-head, large-head, DM prostheses or constrained liner THA after femoral neck fractures for all patients or for patients stratified into younger than 70 years and at least 70 years of age groups. Dislocation is the most common cause of revision. Large-head prostheses are associated with a lower revision risk for dislocation and DM prostheses have a lower rate of revision for dislocation than standard heads for the first 3 months only. Surgeons treating a femoral neck fracture with THA might consider a large head size if the diameter of the acetabulum will allow it and a DM prosthesis if a large head size is not possible. The age, life expectancy and level of function of patients with femoral neck fractures minimizes the potential long-term consequences of these prostheses. The lack of significant differences in survival between most prosthesis combinations means surgeons should continue to look for factors beyond head size and prosthesis to minimize dislocation and revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Enhanced rehabilitation and care models for adults with dementia following hip fracture surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a major injury that causes significant problems for affected individuals and their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment. The outcomes of these individuals after surgery are poorer than for those without dementia. It is unclear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: (a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. (b) To assess for people with dementia the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies that are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery, compared to usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 16 October 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation for people with dementia after hip fracture surgery compared to usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We synthesised data only if we considered the trials to be sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials with a total of 555 participants. Three trials compared models of enhanced care in the inpatient setting with conventional care. Two trials compared an enhanced care model provided in inpatient settings and at home after discharge with conventional care. Two trials compared geriatrician-led care in-hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. None of the interventions were designed specifically for people with dementia, therefore the data included in the review were from subgroups of people with dementia or cognitive impairment participating in randomised controlled trials investigating models of care for all older people following hip fracture. The end of follow-up in the trials ranged from the point of acute hospital discharge to 24 months after discharge. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger trials, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Furthermore, there were some important differences in baseline characteristics of participants between the experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low. The effect estimates for almost all comparisons were very imprecise, and the overall certainty for most results was very low. There were no data from any study for our primary outcome of health-related quality of life. There was only very low certainty for our other primary outcome, activities of daily living and functional performance, therefore we were unable to draw any conclusions with confidence. There was low-certainty that enhanced care and rehabilitation in-hospital may reduce rates of postoperative delirium (odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.22, 2 trials, n = 141) and very low-certainty associating it with lower rates of some other complications. There was also low-certainty that, compared to orthopaedic-led management, geriatrician-led management may lead to shorter hospital stays (mean difference 4.00 days, 95% CI 3.61 to 4.39, 1 trial, n = 162). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence that some of the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care used in the included trials may show benefits over usual care for preventing delirium and reducing length of stay for people with dementia who have been treated for hip fracture. However, the certainty of these results is low. Data were available from only a small number of trials, and the certainty for all other results is very low. Determining the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients should be a research priority.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Strategies for People Undergoing Elective Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in people undergoing elective total hip replacement. METHODS: Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were conducted for 3 outcomes: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and major bleeding (MB). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases were searched. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias checklist. Fixed- and random-effects models were fitted and compared. The median relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) compared with no prophylaxis, with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs), rank, and probability of being the best, were calculated. RESULTS: Forty-two (n = 24 374, 26 interventions), 30 (n = 28 842, 23 interventions), and 24 (n = 31 792, 15 interventions) randomized controlled trials were included in the DVT, PE, and MB networks, respectively. Rivaroxaban had the highest probability of being the most effective intervention for DVT (RR 0.06 [95% CrI 0.01-0.29]). Strategy of low-molecular-weight heparin followed by aspirin had the highest probability of reducing the risk of PE and MB (RR 0.0011 [95% CrI 0.00-0.096] and OR 0.37 [95% CrI 0.00-26.96], respectively). The ranking of efficacy estimates across the 3 networks, particularly PE and MB, had very wide CrIs, indicating high degree of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of low-molecular-weight heparin given for 10 days followed by aspirin for 28 days had the best benefit-risk balance, with the highest probability of being the best on the basis of the results of the PE and MB network meta-analyses. Nevertheless, there is considerable uncertainty around the median ranks of the interventions.