Comparison of acute outcomes from elective total hip replacements and after fragility femoral neck fractures in nonagenarians.

BACKGROUND: Hip hemiarthroplasty has traditionally been used to treat displaced femoral neck fractures in older, frailer patients whilst total hip replacements (THR) have been reserved for younger and fitter patients. However, not all elderly patients are frail, and some may be able to tolerate and benefit from an acute THR. Nonagenarians are a particularly heterogenous subpopulation of the elderly, with varying degrees of independence. Since THRs are performed electively as a routine treatment for osteoarthritis in the elderly, its safety is well established in the older patient. The aim of this study was to compare the safety of emergency THR to elective THR in nonagenarians. METHODS: A retrospective 10-year cohort study was conducted using data submitted to the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) across three hospitals in one large NHS Trust. Data was collected from 126 nonagenarians who underwent THRs between 1st January 2010 - 31st December 2020 and was categorised into emergency THR and elective THR groups. Mortality rates were compared between the two groups. Secondary outcomes were also compared including postoperative complications (dislocations, revision surgeries, and periprosthetic fracture), length of stay in hospital, and discharge destination. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups, with 1-year mortality rates of 11.4% and 12.1% reported for emergency and elective patients respectively (p = 0.848). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication rate and discharge destination. Patients who had emergency THR spent 5.56 days longer in hospital compared to elective patients (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: There is no increased risk of 1-year mortality in emergency THR compared to elective THR, in a nonagenarian population. Therefore, nonagenarians presenting with a hip fracture who would have been considered for a THR if presenting on an elective basis should not be precluded from an emergency THR on safety grounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not necessary as this was deemed not to be clinical research, and was considered to be a service evaluation.

Ethical issues when using digital biomarkers and artificial intelligence for the early detection of dementia.

Dementia poses a growing challenge for health services but remains stigmatized and under-recognized. Digital technologies to aid the earlier detection of dementia are approaching market. These include traditional cognitive screening tools presented on mobile devices, smartphone native applications, passive data collection from wearable, in-home and in-car sensors, as well as machine learning techniques applied to clinic and imaging data. It has been suggested that earlier detection and diagnosis may help patients plan for their future, achieve a better quality of life, and access clinical trials and possible future disease modifying treatments. In this review, we explore whether digital tools for the early detection of dementia can or should be deployed, by assessing them against the principles of ethical screening programs. We conclude that while the importance of dementia as a health problem is unquestionable, significant challenges remain. There is no available treatment which improves the prognosis of diagnosed disease. Progression from early-stage disease to dementia is neither given nor currently predictable. Available technologies are generally not both minimally invasive and highly accurate. Digital deployment risks exacerbating health inequalities due to biased training data and inequity in digital access. Finally, the acceptability of early dementia detection is not established, and resources would be needed to ensure follow-up and support for those flagged by any new system. We conclude that early dementia detection deployed at scale via digital technologies does not meet standards for a screening program and we offer recommendations for moving toward an ethical mode of implementation. This article is categorized under:Application Areas > Health CareCommercial, Legal, and Ethical Issues > Ethical ConsiderationsTechnologies > Artificial Intelligence.