The characteristics and predictors of mortality in periprosthetic fractures around the knee.

Aims: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around the knee are challenging injuries. This study aims to describe the characteristics of knee PPFs and the impact of patient demographics, fracture types, and management modalities on in-hospital mortality. Methods: Using a multicentre study design, independent of registry data, we included adult patients sustaining a PPF around a knee arthroplasty between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Univariate, then multivariable, logistic regression analyses were performed to study the impact of patient, fracture, and treatment on mortality. Results: Out of a total of 1,667 patients in the PPF study database, 420 patients were included. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.4%. Multivariable analyses suggested that American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, history of peripheral vascular disease (PVD), history of rheumatic disease, fracture around a loose implant, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) during hospital stay were each independently associated with mortality. Each point increase in ASA grade independently correlated with a four-fold greater mortality risk (odds ratio (OR) 4.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 14.06); p = 0.026). Patients with PVD have a nine-fold increase in mortality risk (OR 9.1 (95% CI 1.25 to 66.47); p = 0.030) and patients with rheumatic disease have a 6.8-fold increase in mortality risk (OR 6.8 (95% CI 1.32 to 34.68); p = 0.022). Patients with a fracture around a loose implant (Unified Classification System (UCS) B2) have a 20-fold increase in mortality, compared to UCS A1 (OR 20.9 (95% CI 1.61 to 271.38); p = 0.020). Mode of management was not a significant predictor of mortality. Patients managed with revision arthroplasty had a significantly longer length of stay (median 16 days; p = 0.029) and higher rates of return to theatre, compared to patients treated nonoperatively or with fixation. Conclusion: The mortality rate in PPFs around the knee is similar to that for native distal femur and neck of femur fragility fractures. Patients with certain modifiable risk factors should be optimized. A national PPF database and standardized management guidelines are currently required to understand these complex injuries and to improve patient outcomes.

The perceptions of clinicians using low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for orthopaedic pathology: A national qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is a non-invasive treatment modality for delayed union or non-union of acute fractures. We aimed to assess the current use of LIPUS at a national level in the United Kingdom, why and how clinicians use it, what treatment protocols are followed, and what the current perceptions are on this technology. METHODOLOGY: Using a detailed online survey compromised of 20 questions delivered to known LIPUS users, we were able to collect qualitative data on indication of use, type of machine used, personal views on the technology, frequency of usage, and treatment protocols. Each question was peer-reviewed to exclude bias. RESULTS: A total of 70 respondents completed the survey. LIPUS was used by most clinicians for cases of non-union (N = 55, 78.5%) and delayed union (N = 51, 72.8%). The majority of respondents personally used a LIPUS device between 1 and 5 times in 12 months (N = 38, 54.3%). Most considered LIPUS a failure after three to six months of treatment without clinical improvement (N = 39, 55.7%). A total of 32 respondents (45.7%) mentioned the need for funding approval before accessing LIPUS technology. Poor revision surgery candidates (N = 48, 68.6%) and atrophic non-union (N = 46, 65.7%) were the most frequently cited reasons for using LIPUS technology as treatment. Most participants (N = 48, 68.6%) considered LIPUS to be cost-effective. Despite most clinicians being comfortable with the use of LIPUS, some respondents did not understand the basic science underpinning the technology nor could explain the need for LIPUS to patients comfortably. CONCLUSION: LIPUS technology may have a significant role to play in the treatment of orthopaedic fracture related pathology. Regular users perceived the technology to be cost-effective and efficacious. Further research should standardize treatment protocols and aim to establish a national LIPUS registry.

Every minute counts: The impact of pre-hospital response time and scene time on mortality of penetrating trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Prompt surgical control of hemorrhage is crucial in penetrating trauma patients. We aimed to study the impact of prehospital response time (PreRespT) and scene time (SceneT) on hospital mortality. METHODS: Using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) 2010-2016 database, we identified all adults with penetrating injury. We defined PreRespT as time from EMS dispatch to scene arrival, and SceneT as time spent on scene. Univariate then multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to study the independent correlation between PreRespT and SceneT on hospital mortality, adjusting for several covariates. RESULTS: Out of a total of 1,403,470 patients, 43,467 patients were included. Multivariable analyses suggested that: 1) every minute increase in PreRespT independently correlates with a 2% increase in mortality (OR 1.02, p < 0.0001), and 2) every minute increase in SceneT independently correlates with a 1% increase in mortality (OR 1.01, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the penetrating injury trauma patient, PreRespT and SceneT independently correlate with hospital mortality. This data suggests that a faster PreRespT and a "scoop and run" strategy may be more beneficial in this population.