The FAME trial study protocol: In younger adults with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting, is ankle function not worse than those treated with surgical intervention?

Aims: Ankle fracture is one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries sustained in the UK. Many patients experience pain and physical impairment, with the consequences of the fracture and its management lasting for several months or even years. The broad aim of ankle fracture treatment is to maintain the alignment of the joint while the fracture heals, and to reduce the risks of problems, such as stiffness. More severe injuries to the ankle are routinely treated surgically. However, even with advances in surgery, there remains a risk of complications; for patients experiencing these, the associated loss of function and quality of life (Qol) is considerable. Non-surgical treatment is an alternative to surgery and involves applying a cast carefully shaped to the patient's ankle to correct and maintain alignment of the joint with the key benefit being a reduction in the frequency of common complications of surgery. The main potential risk of non-surgical treatment is a loss of alignment with a consequent reduction in ankle function. This study aims to determine whether ankle function, four months after treatment, in patients with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting is not worse than in those treated with surgical intervention, which is the current standard of care. Methods: This trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial with an embedded pilot, and with 12 months clinical follow-up and parallel economic analysis. A surveillance study using routinely collected data will be performed annually to five years post-treatment. Adult patients, aged 60 years and younger, with unstable ankle fractures will be identified in daily trauma meetings and fracture clinics and approached for recruitment prior to their treatment. Treatments will be performed in trauma units across the UK by a wide range of surgeons. Details of the surgical treatment, including how the operation is done, implant choice, and the recovery programme afterwards, will be at the discretion of the treating surgeon. The non-surgical treatment will be close-contact casting performed under anaesthetic, a technique which has gained in popularity since the publication of the Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial. In all, 890 participants (445 per group) will be randomly allocated to surgical or non-surgical treatment. Data regarding ankle function, QoL, complications, and healthcare-related costs will be collected at eight weeks, four and 12 months, and then annually for five years following treatment. The primary outcome measure is patient-reported ankle function at four months from treatment. Anticipated impact: The 12-month results will be presented and published internationally. This is anticipated to be the only pragmatic trial reporting outcomes comparing surgical with non-surgical treatment in unstable ankle fractures in younger adults (aged 60 years and younger), and, as such, will inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'non-complex fracture' recommendations at their scheduled update in 2024. A report of long-term outcomes at five years will be produced by January 2027.

Lack of regional pathways impact on surgical delay: Analysis of the Orthopaedic Trauma Hospital Outcomes-Patient Operative Delays (ORTHOPOD) study.

INTRODUCTION: Current practice following injury within the United Kingdom is to receive surgery, at the institution of first contact regardless of ability to provide timely intervention and inconsiderate of neighbouring hospital resource and capacity. This can lead to a mismatch of demand and capacity, delayed surgery and stress within hospital systems, particularly with regards to elective services. We demonstrate through a multicentre, multinational study, the impact of this at scale. METHODOLOGY: ORTHOPOD data collection period was between 22/08/2022 and 16/10/2022 and consisted of two arms. Arm 1 captured orthopaedic trauma caseload and capacity in terms of sessions available per centre and patients awaiting surgery per centre per given week. Arm 2 recorded patient and injury demographics, time of decision making, outpatient and inpatient timeframes as well as time to surgery. Hand and spine cases were excluded. For this regional comparison, regional trauma networks with a minimum of four centres enroled onto the ORTHOPOD study were exclusively analysed. RESULTS: Following analysis of 11,202 patient episodes across 30 hospitals we found no movement of any patient between hospitals to enable prompt surgery. There is no current system to move patients, between regional centres despite clear discrepancies in workload per capacity across the United Kingdom. Many patients wait for days for surgery when simple transfer to a neighbouring hospital (within 10 miles in many instances) would result in prompt care within national guidelines. CONCLUSION: Most trauma patients in the United Kingdom are managed exclusively at the place of first presentation, with no consideration of alternative pathways to local hospitals that may, at that time, offer increased operative capacity and a shorter waiting time. There is no oversight of trauma workload per capacity at neighbouring hospitals within a regional trauma network. This leads to a marked disparity in waiting time to surgery, and subsequently it can be inferred but not proven, poorer patient experience and outcomes. This inevitably leads to a strain on the overall trauma system and across several centres can impact on elective surgery recovery. We propose the consideration of inter-regional network collaboration, aligned with the Major Trauma System.

The ORthopaedic Trauma Hospital Outcomes - Patient Operative Delays (ORTHOPOD) study.

Aims: This is a multicentre, prospective assessment of a proportion of the overall orthopaedic trauma caseload of the UK. It investigates theatre capacity, cancellations, and time to surgery in a group of hospitals that is representative of the wider population. It identifies barriers to effective practice and will inform system improvements. Methods: Data capture was by collaborative approach. Patients undergoing procedures from 22 August 2022 and operated on before 31 October 2022 were included. Arm one captured weekly caseload and theatre capacity. Arm two concerned patient and injury demographics, and time to surgery for specific injury groups. Results: Data was available from 90 hospitals across 86 data access groups (70 in England, two in Wales, ten in Scotland, and four in Northern Ireland). After exclusions, 709 weeks' of data on theatre capacity and 23,138 operations were analyzed. The average number of cases per operating session was 1.73. Only 5.8% of all theatre sessions were dedicated day surgery sessions, despite 29% of general trauma patients being eligible for such pathways. In addition, 12.3% of patients experienced at least one cancellation. Delays to surgery were longest in Northern Ireland and shortest in England and Scotland. There was marked variance across all fracture types. Open fractures and fragility hip fractures, influenced by guidelines and performance renumeration, had short waits, and varied least. In all, nine hospitals had 40 or more patients waiting for surgery every week, while seven had less than five. Conclusion: There is great variability in operative demand and list provision seen in this study of 90 UK hospitals. There is marked variation in nearly all injuries apart from those associated with performance monitoring. There is no evidence of local network level coordination of care for orthopaedic trauma patients. Day case operating and pathways of care are underused and are an important area for service improvement.

Digitalising patient reported outcome collection tools in orthopaedic trauma-A scoping review.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to provide a scoping review to the role of digital technology in the collection of orthopaedic trauma related patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O'Malley frameworks were followed. A search strategy identified relevant literature, with the identified criteria screened for acceptability for inclusion. Data was extracted to form a descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Six studies met the criteria for inclusion. All were quantitative, the majority were published in the United States of America and the use of iPads was the commonest form of digital technology used. Heterogeneity existed in the type of outcomes collected between studies. All studies aimed to compare traditional methods of PROMs collection to digital methods, with an overall thematic summary suggestive of the positive impact of electronic methods of collecting patient reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: This paper has demonstrated the dearth of ePROM implementation in the orthopaedic trauma setting, however its use has proved successful and therefore further evidence is needed to demonstrate its effectiveness. Furthermore, the types of PROMs in orthopaedic trauma varies significantly, and efforts to standardise the type of digital trauma PROMs used are recommended.

Caring for patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures across England and Wales in 2021.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement. Methods: This work used data freely available from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) facilities survey in 2021, which asked 21 questions about the care of patients with PPFFs, and nine relating to clinical decision-making around a hypothetical case. Results: Of 174 centres contributing data to the NHFD, 161 provided full responses and 139 submitted data on PPFF. Lack of resources was cited as the main reason for not submitting data. Surgeon (44.6%) and theatre (29.7%) availability were reported as the primary reasons for surgical delay beyond 36 hours. Less than half had a formal process for a specialist surgeon to operate on PPFF at least every other day. The median number of specialist surgeons at each centre was four (interquartile range (IQR) 3 to 6) for PPFF around both hips and knees. Around one-third of centres reported having one dedicated theatre list per week. The routine discussion of patients with PPFF at local and regional multidisciplinary team meetings was lower than that for all-cause revision arthroplasties. Six centres reported transferring all patients with PPFF around a hip joint to another centre for surgery, and this was an occasional practice for a further 34. The management of the hypothetical clinical scenario was varied, with 75 centres proposing ORIF, 35 suggested revision surgery and 48 proposed a combination of both revision and fixation. Conclusion: There is considerable variation in both the organization of PPFF services England and Wales, and in the approach taken to an individual case. The rising incidence of PPFF and complexity of these patients highlight the need for pathway development. The adoption of networks may reduce variability and improve outcomes for patients with PPFF.

ORthopaedic trauma hospital outcomes - Patient operative delays (ORTHOPOD) Study: The management of day-case orthopaedic trauma in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: ORTHOPOD: Day Case Trauma is a multicentre prospective service evaluation of day-case trauma surgery across four countries. It is an epidemiological assessment of injury burden, patient pathways, theatre capacity, time to surgery and cancellation. It is the first evaluation of day-case trauma processes and system performance at nationwide scale. METHODS: Data was prospectively recorded through a collaborative approach. Arm one captured weekly caseload burden and operating theatre capacity. Arm two detailed patient and injury demographics, and time to surgery for specific injury groups. Patients scheduled for surgery between 22/08/22 and 16/10/22 and operated on before 31/10/22, were included. For this analysis, hand and spine injuries were excluded. RESULTS: Data was obtained from 86 Data Access Groups (70 in England, 2 in Wales, 10 in Scotland and 4 in Northern Ireland). After exclusions, 709 weeks worth of data representing 23,138 operative cases were analysed. Day-case trauma patients (DCTP) accounted for 29.1% of overall trauma burden and utilised 25.7% of general trauma list capacity. They were predominantly adults aged 18 to 59 (56.7%) with upper limb Injuries (65.7%). Across the four nations, the median number of day-case trauma lists (DCTL) available per week was 0 (IQR 1). 6 of 84 (7.1%) hospitals had at least five DCTLs per week. Rates of cancellation (13.2% day-case; 11.9% inpatient) and escalation to elective operating lists (9.1% day-case; 3.4% inpatient) were higher in DCTPs. For equivalent injuries, DCTPs waited longer for surgery. Distal radius and ankle fractures had median times to surgery within national recommendations: 3 days and 6 days respectively. Outpatient route to surgery was varied. Dominant pathways (>50% patients listed at that episode) in England and Wales were uncommon but the most frequently seen was listing patients in the emergency department, 16 of 80 hospitals (20%). CONCLUSION: There is significant mismatch in DCTP management and resource availability. There is also considerable variation in DCTP route to surgery. Suitable DCTL patients are often managed as inpatients. Improving day-case trauma services reduces the burden on general trauma lists and this study demonstrates there is considerable scope for service and pathway development and improved patient experience.

The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study: the management of open fracture care in the UK.

AIMS: The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study was performed to provide clarity in open fracture management previously skewed by small, specialist centre studies and large, unfocused registry investigations. We report the current management metrics of open fractures across the UK. METHOD: Patients admitted to hospital with an open fracture (excluding phalanges or isolated hand injuries) between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 were included. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture software. All domains of the British Orthopaedic Association Standard for Open Fracture Management were recorded. RESULTS: Across 51 centres, 1,175 patients were analyzed. Antibiotics were given to 754 (69.0%) in the emergency department, 240 (22.0%) pre-hospital, and 99 (9.1%) as inpatients. Wounds were photographed in 848 (72.7%) cases. Median time to first surgery was 16 hrs 14 mins (interquartile range (IQR) 8 hrs 29 mins to 23 hrs 19 mins). Complex injuries were operated on sooner (median 12 hrs 51 mins (IQR 4 hrs 36 mins to 21 hrs 14 mins)). Of initial procedures, 1,053 (90.3%) occurred between 8am and 8pm. A consultant orthopaedic surgeon was present at 1,039 (89.2%) first procedures. In orthoplastic centres, a consultant plastic surgeon was present at 465 (45.1%) first procedures. Overall, 706 (60.8%) patients required a single operation. At primary debridement, 798 (65.0%) fractures were definitively fixed, while 734 (59.8%) fractures had fixation and coverage in one operation through direct closure or soft-tissue coverage. Negative pressure wound therapy was used in 235 (67.7%) staged procedures. Following wound closure or soft-tissue cover, 509 (47.0%) patients received antibiotics for a median of three days (IQR 1 to 7). CONCLUSION: OPEN provides an insight into care across the UK and different levels of hospital for open fractures. Patients are predominantly operated on promptly, in working hours, and at specialist centres. Areas for improvement include combined patient review and follow-up, scheduled operating, earlier definitive soft-tissue cover, and more robust antibiotic husbandry.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1073-1080.

The Fragility Fracture Postoperative Mobilisation multicentre audit : the reality of weightbearing practices following operations for lower limb fragility fractures.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine the weightbearing practice of operatively managed fragility fractures in the setting of publically funded health services in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: The Fragility Fracture Postoperative Mobilisation (FFPOM) multicentre audit included all patients aged 60 years and older undergoing surgery for a fragility fracture of the lower limb between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2019, and 1 February 2021 and 14 March 2021. Fractures arising from high-energy transfer trauma, patients with multiple injuries, and those associated with metastatic deposits or infection were excluded. We analyzed this patient cohort to determine adherence to the British Orthopaedic Association Standard, "all surgery in the frail patient should be performed to allow full weight-bearing for activities required for daily living". RESULTS: A total of 19,557 patients (mean age 82 years (SD 9), 16,241 having a hip fracture) were included. Overall, 16,614 patients (85.0%) were instructed to perform weightbearing where required for daily living immediately postoperatively (15,543 (95.7%) hip fracture and 1,071 (32.3%) non-hip fracture patients). The median length of stay was 12.2 days (interquartile range (IQR) 7.9 to 20.0) (12.6 days (IQR 8.2 to 20.4) for hip fracture and 10.3 days (IQR 5.5 to 18.7) for non-hip fracture patients). CONCLUSION: Non-hip fracture patients experienced more postoperative weightbearing restrictions, although they had a shorter hospital stay. Patients sustaining fractures of the shaft and distal femur had a longer median length of stay than demographically similar patients who received hip fracture surgery. We have shown a significant disparity in weightbearing restrictions placed on patients with fragility fractures, despite the publication of a national guideline. Surgeons intentionally restrict postoperative weightbearing in the majority of non-hip fractures, yet are content with unrestricted weightbearing following operations for hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):972-979.

Percutaneous Strain Reduction Screws Are a Reproducible Minimally Invasive Method to Treat Long Bone Nonunion.

OBJECTIVES: (1) Evaluate whether initial results from percutaneous treatment of nonunion are reproducible (2) Estimate the relative cost of percutaneous treatment of nonunion versus traditional methods. DESIGN: Retrospective multicentre case series. SETTING: Four Level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-one patients (34 men and 17 women) with a median age of 51 years (range 14-81) were treated for nonunion at a median of 10 months (range 4-212) from injury. INTERVENTION: Percutaneous strain reduction screws (PSRS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURED: Union rates and time to union were compared for patients treated in the developing institution versus independent units as well as with previously published results. RESULTS: Forty-five (88%) patients achieved union at a median time of 5.2 months (range 1.0-24.7) confirming the previously published results for this technique. Comparable results were seen between the developing institution and independent units. No patients experienced adverse events beyond failure to achieve union. PSRS seems to offer savings of between £3177 ($4416) to £11,352 ($15,780) per case compared with traditional methods of nonunion surgery. CONCLUSIONS: PSRS is a safe, efficacious treatment for long bone nonunion and may be more cost-effective than traditional nonunion treatment methods. The promising initial results of this technique have now been replicated outside of the developing institution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

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.

Smoking and the patient with a complex lower limb injury.

Smoking is known to increase the risk of peri-operative complications in Orthoplastic surgery by impairing bone and wound healing. The effects of nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has been less well established. Previous reviews have examined the relationship between smoking and bone and wound healing separately. This review provides surgeons with a comprehensive and contemporaneous account of how smoking in all forms interacts with all aspects of complex lower limb trauma. We provide a guide for surgeons to refer to during the consent process to enable them to tailor information towards smokers in such a way that the patient may understand the risks involved with their surgical treatment. We update the literature with recently discovered methods of monitoring and treating the troublesome complications that occur more commonly in smokers effected by trauma.

Too Cool? Hip Fracture Care and Maintaining Body Temperature.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with hip fractures can become cold during the perioperative period despite measures applied to maintain warmth. Poor temperature control is linked with increasing complications and poorer functional outcomes. There is generic evidence for the benefits of maintaining normothermia, however this is sparse where specifically concerning hip fracture. We provide the first comprehensive review in this population. SIGNIFICANCE: Large studies have revealed dramatic impact on wound infection, transfusion rates, increased morbidity and mortality. With very few studies relating to hip fracture patients, this review aimed to capture an overview of available literature regarding hypothermia and its impact on outcomes. RESULTS: Increased mortality, readmission rates and surgical site infections are all associated with poor temperature control. This is more profound, and more common, in older frail patients. Increasing age and lower BMI were recognized as demographic factors that increase risk of hypothermia, which was routinely identified within modern day practice despite the use of active warming. CONCLUSION: There is a gap in research related to fragility fractures and how hypothermia impacts outcomes. Inadvertent intraoperative hypothermia still occurs routinely, even when active warming and cotton blankets are applied. No studies documented temperature readings postoperatively once patients had been returned to the ward. This is a point in the timeline where patients could be hypothermic. More studies need to be performed relating to this area of surgery.

Epidemiology of adult rib fracture and factors associated with surgical fixation: Analysis of a chest wall injury dataset from England and Wales.

INTRODUCTION: Chest wall trauma is commonly seen in patients admitted with both high and low-energy transfer injury. Whilst often associated with other injuries, it is also seen in isolation following simple falls in the older patient. Fixation of the chest wall grows in popularity as part of optimising patient care, particularly in terms of critical care stay. There is currently no description of the epidemiology of these injuries at a national level; nor has there been identification of factors that predict which of these patients undergoes surgery. METHODS: The United Kingdom Trauma Audit & Research Network (TARN) database was analysed for the period April 2016 to 30th May 2017 for all adult patients presenting with a rib or sternal fracture. Characteristics of the population were described and a binary logistic regression model constructed to explore the influences of several explanatory variables on whether fixation was performed. RESULTS: Of 16,638 patients with chest wall trauma, 402 underwent fixation. Most chest wall injury patients were admitted under three specialties (orthopaedics (19.1%), emergency medicine (16.6%) and general surgery (17.7%)). The odds of fixation in unilateral flail chest was 107.51 (p <0.0001), in bilateral flail or combined complexsternal fracture 47.63 (p = 0.007) and in 3 or more non-flail ribs 15.62 (p<0.0001) when compared to less than three non-flail rib fractures. The odds of fixation was higher in an MTC (p<0.0001) compared to a non-specialist hospital. The odds of fixation was higher in older patients (1.02, p<0.0001) and the more severely injured (1.02, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: There is considerable variation nationally in the management of chest wall trauma. Injury type, patient age and care setting contribute to decision making in fracture fixation. This unique national dataset characterises for the first time the nature of contemporary chest wall trauma management and should help inform the design of future research on this topic.

Assessment of Nutrition and Supplementation in Patients With Hip Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Malnutrition is common in older people, is known to interact with frailty, and is a risk factor for wound complications and poor functional outcomes postoperatively. Sustaining a hip fracture is a significant life event, often resulting in a decline in mobility and functional ability. A poor nutritional state may further impede recovery and rehabilitation, so strategies to improve perioperative nutrition are of considerable importance. We provide a review of nutritional supplement practices in this vulnerable and growing population. METHOD: Systematic review of preoperative oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) in hip fracture patients. RESULTS: We identified 12 articles pertaining to this important area of perioperative care. The findings suggest postoperative ONS can improve postoperative outcomes in hip fracture patients, especially in terms of increasing total serum protein, improving nutritional status to near-optimum levels, and decreasing postoperative complications. DISCUSSION: There is an absence of evidence specific to preoperative ONS in patients admitted following hip fracture. Literature relating to other populations is encouraging but is yet to be robustly studied. It is unclear whether these results are generalizable to the frailer hip fracture population. There is a need for studies clearly defining outcome measurement and complication assessment pertaining to preoperative ONS. The potential benefit is considerable, and this review will provide a means to inform the construction of meaningful trials in preoperative ONS of patients sustaining hip fracture. CONCLUSION: Oral nutritional supplementation in hip fracture patients may decrease postoperative complications while increasing elderly patient's nutritional state to a near-optimum level. This is extrapolated from postoperative literature, however with a clear gap in research pertaining specifically to preoperative care. The need for well-constructed studies focused on the impact and assessment of early ONS in this population is transparent.

Nutrition in Hip Fracture Units: Contemporary Practices in Preoperative Supplementation.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with hip fractures pose a significant burden on health services. Malnutrition, frailty, and cognitive impairment are common, and key to addressing the needs of this vulnerable patient group is nutrition optimization, including reduction in arbitrary nil by mouth (NBM) perioperative regimens. In order to understand current practices, we characterize preoperative nutrition in a regional hip fracture population. METHODS: Prospective data were submitted to the National Hip Fracture Database by 6 hospitals in the north east of England over a 6-month period. Patients were stratified by preoperative nutritional intake, frailty, and cognitive function. RESULTS: In all, 24.2% (n = 205) patients received no oral intake at all preoperatively; 15.3% of NBM patients were at risk of malnutrition; and 6.9% were malnourished at the time of assessment. Median time to surgery for NBM patients was 16.75 hours, and 6.34% of patients were fasted with no intake for >36 hours. In all, 6.5% (n = 44) of patients with an Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS) of 8 or above were deemed to be at risk of malnutrition at admission, compared to 11.3% (n = 50) of patients with an AMTS of 7 or below. The NBM patients had similar mean Rockwood (4.97) and AMTS (6.51) scores to patients given oral nutrition. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated contemporary preoperative nutritional practices in the management of over 800 hip fracture patients. Contrary to perception, nutrition practices vary little when stratified for age, cognition frailty, or comorbid burden. We have identified widespread prolonged NBM fasting and undersupplementation in patients sustaining hip fracture across a region. This work suggests a need to focus less on patient factors and more on systematic practices.

Systematic review of systematic reviews for effectiveness of internal fixation for flail chest and rib fractures in adults.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple systematic reviews have reported on the impact of rib fracture fixation in the presence of flail chest and multiple rib fractures, however this practice remains controversial. Our aim is to synthesise the effectiveness of surgical rib fracture fixation as evidenced by systematic reviews. DESIGN: A systematic search identified systematic reviews comparing effectiveness of rib fracture fixation with non-operative management of adults with flail chest or unifocal non-flail rib fractures. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Science Citation Index were last searched 17 March 2017. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews were included, consisting of 3 unique randomised controlled trials and 19 non-randomised studies. Length of mechanical ventilation was shorter in the fixation group compared with the non-operative group in flail chest; pooled estimates ranged from -4.52 days, 95% CI (-5.54 to -3.5) to -7.5 days, 95% CI (-9.9 to -5.5). Pneumonia, length of hospital and intensive care unit stay all showed a statistically significant improvement in favour of fixation for flail chest; however, all outcomes in favour of fixation had substantial heterogeneity. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in mortality. Two systematic reviews included one non-randomised studies of unifocal non-flail rib fracture population; due to limited evidence the benefits with surgery are uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Synthesis of the reviews has shown some potential improvement in patient outcomes with flail chest after fixation. For future review updates, meta-analysis for effectiveness may need to take into account indications and timing of surgery as a subgroup analysis to address clinical heterogeneity between primary studies. Further robust evidence is required before conclusions can be drawn of the effectiveness of surgical fixation for flail chest and in particular, unifocal non-flail rib fractures. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016053494.

Assessment and Early Management of Pain in Hip Fractures: The Impact of Paracetamol.

INTRODUCTION: As the number of patients sustaining hip fractures increases, interventions aimed at improving patient comfort and reducing complication burden acquire increased importance. Frailty, cognitive impairment, and difficulty in assessing pain control characterize this population. In order to inform future care, a review of pain assessment and the use of preoperative intravenous paracetamol (IVP) is presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review of preoperative IVP administration in patients presenting with a hip fracture. RESULTS: Intravenous paracetamol is effective in the early management of pain control in the hip fracture population. There is a considerable decrease in use of breakthrough pain medications when compared with other pain relief modalities. Additionally, IVP reduces the incidence of opioid-induced complications, reduces length of stay, and lowers mean pain scores. Another significant finding of this study is the poor administration of all analgesics to patients with hip fracture with up to 72% receiving no prehospital analgesia. DISCUSSION: The potential benefits of IVP as routine in the early management of hip fracture-related pain are clear. Studies of direct comparison between analgesia regimes to inform optimum bundles of analgesic care are sparse. This study highlights the need for properly constructed pathway-driven comparator studies of contemporary analgesia regimes, with IVP as a central feature to optimize pain control and minimize analgesia-related morbidity in this vulnerable population.

The use of foot pumps compression devices in the perioperative management of ankle fractures: Systematic review of the current literature.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures account for 9% of all fractures seen in the United Kingdom. 15,000 of these fractures undergo operative fixation each year. Soft tissue swelling impacts on timing of fixation due to fears of infection and wound dehiscence. The use of arterio-venous foot pumps (AVFP) is increasing in this population although the evidence for their efficacy is unclear. In order to address this, we present an overview of the evidence for AVFP device use following ankle fracture. METHODS: In September 2015 an electronic literature search was undertaken of studies comparing two or more methods of swelling reduction in patients with ankle fractures. Of 326 screened, 5 papers ultimately were included. RESULTS: Two studies reported a statistically significant reduction in swelling (p=0.03) and (p=0.03 at 24 hours, p=0.05 at 48 hours) after using AVFP devices compared to the controls (leg elevation +/ ice therapy). Stockle et al. reported a greater reduction in the preoperative ankle, midfoot and forefoot circumference at 24 hours in their AVFP group (53% versus 32% and 10% in their continuous cryotherapy and cool pack cryotherapy groups respectively). Whereas, Rohner-Spengler et al. observed improved preoperative swelling reduction in patients treated with a multilayer compression bandage when compared to their AVFP group. Keehan et al. reported that time to surgery was considerably reduced in patients treated with an AVFP device, (2.3 days) compared to those treated with leg elevation (4.6 days) (p=0.02). Length of stay (LOS) was not influenced by any of the tested interventions. CONCLUSIONS: AVFP devices have been shown to reduce time to surgery and degree of swelling before operative intervention better than other methods but the strength of evidence to support this remains poor.

Factors Influencing patient experience and satisfaction following surgical management of ankle fractures.

BACKGROUND: Patient feedback is increasingly important to inform and develop effective healthcare within the United Kingdom. In order to optimise patient experience of ankle fracture care in our unit, we sought to identify elements of practice associated with poor patient experience and low levels of satisfaction. METHODS: Adult patients with closed ankle fractures requiring fixation over a ten month period were prospectively identified. Prior to discharge all patients completed the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (PPE-15), satisfaction visual analogue scale (VAS: 0-10) and a demographic questionnaire. Operative delay and cancellation episodes were similarly noted. PPE-15 and satisfaction VAS data were collected concurrently from a control group of elective hip and knee arthroplasty patients. RESULTS: 52 patients (23 males) of average age 47 years (17-86) underwent ankle fracture fixation. Median pre-operative length of stay (LOS) was 3days (IQR 1-6). Ankle fracture patients had significantly worse experiences compared to arthroplasty patients (p<0.05 across all 15 PPE domains). Once pre-operative length of stay exceeded 3days patients reported more areas of concerns (6 of 15) than those waiting 3days or less (4 of 15) (p=0.02). Cancelled patients reported significantly worse experiences, with satisfaction VAS of 7 (versus 9 in those not cancelled [p=0.005]), and median of 6 PPE-15 domains of concern (versus 3.5 [p=0.03]). CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve the healthcare experience of patients with ankle fractures should be focused on improving processes that minimise cancellation of surgery and the communication around delay management.