Incidence and predictive factors of problems after fixation of trochanteric hip fractures with sliding hip screw or intramedullary devices.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are common and disabling injuries, usually managed surgically. The most common type outside the joint capsule are trochanteric fractures, usually fixed with either sliding hip screw or intramedullary nail. Data are available in the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) on early failure and other major complications, but late or subtler complications may escape recording. This study sought to quantify such problems after fixation performed at 3different sites and identify their predictors. METHODS: Patients with a trochanteric fracture treated at 1 of 3 sites were identified from the NHFD over a 3-year period. Any with further, related episodes of care were identified, and reasons recorded, then age- and sex-matched with those with no such episodes. Data was collected on Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen classification, tip-apex distance, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, Abbreviated Mental Test Score and pre-injury mobility. The cohorts were compared, and a binomial logistic regression model used to identify predictors of problems. RESULTS: A total of 4010 patients were entered in the NHFD across 3 sites between January 2013 and December 2015. Of these, 1260 sustained trochanteric fractures and 57 (4.5%) subsequently experienced problems leading to re-presentation. The most common was failure of fixation, occurring in 22 patients (1.7%). The binomial logistic regression model explained 47.6% of the variance in incidence of postoperative problems with ASA grade and tip-apex distance being predictive. DISCUSSION: The incidence of re-presentation with problems was around of 5%. A failure rate of less than 2% was seen, in keeping with existing data. This study has quantified the incidence of subtler postoperative problems and identified their predictors. The type of implant used was not amongst them and patients with both implants experienced problems. Fixation continues to yield imperfect results, but patient health and robust surgical technique remain important factors in a good outcome.

Short or long intramedullary devices for hip fracture? A systematic review of the evidence.

Trochanteric hip fractures may be fixed with either sliding hip screws or intramedullary devices. Current UK guidance is that intramedullary fixation should be used for AO/OTA 31A3 fractures but does not stipulate length of nail. We present a systematic review comparing short and long nails for these injuries in older patients. Three studies were randomized, all with methodological concerns. None demonstrated a clinically significant difference in outcome. There is no good evidence to support long over short intramedullary devices in this scenario. Evidence is required to demonstrate whether the potentially increased surgical risk confers any benefits in this group.

Changing trends in the management of intertrochanteric hip fractures - A single centre experience.

With an annual incidence greater than 65,000 in the United Kingdom, hip fractures are a common but debilitating injury predominantly affecting those over 65. Treatment is based on the anatomical location of the fracture relative to the capsule of the hip joint - fractures occurring within it are treated by arthroplasty, while extracapsular fractures are an indication for fixation. Intertrochanteric fractures are further grouped as stable (AO/OTA 31A1/A2) or unstable (31A3) which in turn governs in the current UK guidelines whether this fixation is achieved with a dynamic hip screw or intramedullary device. Anecdotally, some units are tending towards intramedullary devices for 31A2 fractures as well, a practice which from the evidence does not appear to confer benefit and carries an excess cost. We reviewed our data submitted to the National Hip Fracture Database over the last five years and identified all intertrochanteric fractures, from which cohort we identified all patients with 31A2 fractures by review of radiographs. The cohort comprised 370 patients. We then recorded age, gender, ASA grade, abbreviated mental test score, residence from where admitted, length of stay, destination on discharge and whether any further operations were required. There was no significant difference in the demographics of the groups, year-on-year, except gender mix. There was a significant, twenty-fold rise in the use of intramedullary devices between 2011 and 2015. Length of stay, length of overall episode of care, revision rates, mortality and destination on discharge were unchanged. This use is not supported by NICE guidelines and this study offers no evidence to contradict this position. We advocate all centres examine their practice to avoid a costly intervention without clinical benefit.

The use of secure anonymised data linkage to determine changes in healthcare utilisation following severe open tibial fractures.

Severe open fractures of the lower limbs are complex injuries requiring expert multidisciplinary management in appropriate orthoplastic centres. This study aimed to assess the impact of open fractures on healthcare utilisation and test the null hypotheses that there is no difference in healthcare utilisation between the year before and year after injury, and that there is no difference in healthcare utilisation in the year post-injury between patients admitted directly to an orthoplastic centre in keeping with the joint BOA/BAPRAS standards and those having initial surgery elsewhere. This retrospective cohort study utilising secure anonymised information linkage (SAIL), a novel databank of anonymised nationally pooled health records, recruited patients over 18 years of age sustaining severe open lower limb fractures managed primarily or secondarily at our centre and who had data available in the SAIL databank. 101 patients met inclusion criteria and 90 of these had records in the SAIL databank. The number of days in hospital, number of primary care attendances, number of outpatient attendances and number of emergency department attendances in the years prior and subsequent to injury were recorded. Patients sustaining open fractures had significantly different healthcare utilisation in the year after injury when compared with the year before, in terms of days spent in hospital (23.42 vs. 1.70, p=0.000), outpatient attendances (11.98 vs. 1.05, p=0.000), primary care attendances (29.48 vs. 11.99, p=0.000) and emergency department presentations (0.2 vs. 0.01, p=0.025). Patients admitted directly to orthoplastic centres had significantly fewer operations (1.78 vs. 3.31) and GP attendances (23.6 vs. 33.52) than those transferred in subsequent to initial management in other units. There is a significant increase in healthcare utilisation after open tibial fracture. Adherence to national standards minimises the impact of this on both patients and health services.