Are There Differences in Performance Among Femoral Stem Brands Utilized in Cementless Hemiarthroplasty for Treatment of Geriatric Femoral Neck Fractures?

BACKGROUND: For the vast majority of displaced femoral neck fractures in older patients, cemented femoral fixation is indicated because it is associated with a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture than cementless fixation. Nevertheless, cementless fixation continues to be utilized with high frequency for hip fractures in the United States. It is therefore helpful to understand the performance of individual cementless brands and models. Although prior studies have compared femoral stems by design type or stem geometry, there may still be a difference in revision risk according to femoral stem brand given the potential differences within design groupings with regard to manufacturing, implantation systems, and implant design nuances among vendors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there a difference in aseptic revision risk among femoral stem brands in patients ≥ 60 years of age who have displaced femoral neck fractures treated with cementless hemiarthroplasty? (2) Is there a difference in revision for periprosthetic fracture among femoral stem brands in patients ≥ 60 years of age with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with cementless hemiarthroplasty? METHODS: A retrospective, comparative, large-database cohort study was conducted using data from Kaiser Permanente's Hip Fracture Registry. This integrated healthcare system covers more than 12 million members throughout eight regions in the United States; membership has been found to be representative of the general population in the areas served. The Hip Fracture Registry collects details on all patients who undergo hip fracture repair within the organization. These patients are then longitudinally monitored for outcomes after their repair, and all identified outcomes are manually validated through chart review. Patients ages ≥ 60 years who underwent unilateral hemiarthroplasty treatment of a displaced femoral neck fracture from 2009 to 2021 were identified (n = 22,248). Hemiarthroplasties for polytrauma, pathologic or open fractures, or patients who had additional surgeries at other body sites during the same stay, as well as those with prior procedures in the same hip, were excluded (21.4% [4768]). Cemented procedures and those with missing or inconsistent implant information (for example, cement used but cementless implant recorded) were further excluded (47.1% [10,485]). To allow for enough events for evaluation, the study sample was restricted to seven stems for which there were at least 300 hemiarthroplasties performed, including four models from DePuy Synthes (Corail®, Summit®, Summit Basic, and Tri-Lock®) and three from Zimmer Biomet (Medial-Lateral [M/L] Taper®, Trabecular Metal®, and Versys® Low Demand Fracture [LD/FX]). The final sample included 5676 cementless hemiarthroplasties: 653 Corail, 402 M/L Taper, 1699 Summit, 1590 Summit Basic, 384 Tri-Lock, 637 Trabecular Metal, and 311 Versys LD/FX. Procedures were performed by 396 surgeons at 35 hospitals. The mean age and BMI for the cohort was 81 years and 24 kg/m2, respectively; most were women (66% [3733 of 5676]) and White (79% [4488 of 5676]). Based on standardized mean differences, we controlled for age, race/ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification, anesthesia technique, operative year, average annual surgeon hemiarthroplasty volume, and operative year across the seven stem groups. Of the 5676 patients, 7% (378 of 5676) were lost to follow-up through membership termination at a median time of 1.6 years, and 56% (3194 of 5676) of the patients died during study follow-up. A multivariable cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the risk for aseptic revision with adjustment for age, gender, ASA classification, depression, operating surgeon, deficiency anemias, time from admission to surgery, and average annual surgeon hemiarthroplasty volume. A random intercept was included to address effects from hemiarthroplasties performed by the same surgeon. Risk for revision for periprosthetic fracture was also evaluated as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: In the adjusted analysis, the Summit Basic (HR 1.91 [95% confidence interval 1.34 to 2.72]; p < 0.001), the M/L Taper (HR 1.91 [95% CI 1.15 to 3.15]; p = 0.01), and the Versys LD/FX (HR 2.12 [95% CI 1.25 to 3.61]; p = 0.005) had higher aseptic revision risks during follow-up when compared with the Summit. No differences were observed for the Corail (HR 0.57 [95% CI 0.29 to 1.10]; p = 0.09), the Tri-Lock (HR 1.13 [95% CI 0.62 to 2.07]; p = 0.68), or the Trabecular Metal (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.69 to 1.89]; p = 0.61) compared with the Summit. A higher risk for revision because of periprosthetic fracture was observed with the M/L Taper (HR 2.43 [95% CI 1.29 to 4.58]; p = 0.006) and the Summit Basic (within 3 months of follow-up: HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.60 to 2.25]; p = 0.66; after 3 months of follow-up: HR 2.84 [95% CI 1.36 to 5.94]; p = 0.006) stems when compared with the Summit. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of 5676 cementless hemiarthroplasties, we found differences in revision risks among different femoral stem brands. Based on our findings, we recommend against utilization of the Zimmer M/L Taper, DePuy Summit Basic, and Zimmer Versys LD/FX in the treatment of displaced geriatric femoral neck fractures with cementless hemiarthroplasty. Future large registry studies are needed to further elucidate differences in aseptic revision risk among higher performing cementless femoral stems. Although cemented fixation remains the recommended approach based on the best available evidence in hemiarthroplasty treatment of hip fractures, our findings may help to mitigate aseptic revision risk should cementless fixation be chosen. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Racial/Ethnic and Gender Diversity of Orthopaedic Journal Editorial Boards.

BACKGROUND: In the current era of evidence-based medicine, scientific publications play a crucial role in guiding patient care. While the lack of diversity among orthopaedic surgeons has been well documented, little is known about the diversity of orthopaedic journal editorial boards. The purpose of this study was to assess the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of U.S. orthopaedic journal editorial boards. METHODS: The editorial boards of 13 orthopaedic journals were examined, including 10 subspecialty and 3 general orthopaedic journals. Race/ethnicity and gender were determined for each editorial board member. The representation observed on orthopaedic journal editorial boards was compared with representation at other phases of the orthopaedic pipeline, as well as within the various subspecialty fields of orthopaedics. Logistic regression and t tests were used to evaluate these comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 876 editorial board members of the 13 journals; 14.0% were Asian, 1.9% were Black, 1.9% were Hispanic, 2.4% were multiracial/other, and 79.7% were White. Racial/ethnic representation was similar across the subspecialty fields of orthopaedics (p > 0.05). The representation of women on orthopaedic editorial boards was 7.9%, with differences in gender diversity observed across subspecialty fields (p < 0.05). Among journals in the subspecialty fields of spine and trauma, female editorial board representation was lower than expected, even after taking into account the representation of women in these subspecialty fields (2.0% versus 9.0% [p = 0.002] and 3.8% versus 10.0% [p = 0.03], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of 13 subspecialty and general orthopaedic journals, the representation of racial/ethnic minorities and women on editorial boards was similar to their representation in academic orthopaedics. However, these values remain low in comparison with the population of patients treated by orthopaedic surgeons. Given the importance of scientific publications in the current era of evidence-based medicine, orthopaedic journals should continue working to diversify the membership of their editorial boards.

Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty, Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty, or Total Hip Arthroplasty for Hip Fracture in Older Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Practice patterns regarding the use of unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fractures in older patients vary widely. This is due in part to limited data stipulating the specific circumstances under which each form of arthroplasty provides the most predictable outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the patient characteristics for which unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, or THA might be preferable due to a lower risk of all-cause revision. METHODS: A U.S. health-care system's hip fracture registry was used to identify patients ≥60 years old who underwent unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, or THA for hip fracture from 2009 through 2021. Unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty were compared with THA within patient subgroups defined by age (60 to 79 versus ≥80 years) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (I or II versus III); patients with an ASA classification of IV or higher were excluded. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to evaluate all-cause revision risk while adjusting for confounders, with mortality considered as a competing risk. RESULTS: There were 14,277 patients in the final sample (median age, 82 years; 70% female; 80% White; 69% with an ASA classification of III; median follow-up, 2.7 years), and the procedures included 7,587 unipolar hemiarthroplasties, 5,479 bipolar hemiarthroplasties, and 1,211 THAs. In the multivariable analysis of all patients, both unipolar (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48 to 3.12; p < 0.001) and bipolar (HR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.31 to 2.80; p < 0.001) hemiarthroplasty had higher revision risks than THA. In the age-stratified multivariable analysis of patients aged 60 to 79 years, both unipolar (HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.42 to 3.34; p = 0.004) and bipolar (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.08 to 2.65; p = 0.022) hemiarthroplasty also had higher revision risks than THA. In the ASA-stratified multivariable analysis, patients with an ASA classification of I or II had a higher revision risk after either unipolar (HR = 3.52, 95% CI = 1.87 to 6.64; p < 0.001) or bipolar (HR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.19 to 4.49; p = 0.013) hemiarthroplasty than after THA. No difference in revision risk between either of the hemiarthroplasties and THA was observed among patients with an age of ≥80 years or those with an ASA classification of III. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of hip fractures in older patients, THA was associated with a lower risk of all-cause revision compared with unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty among patients who were 60 to 79 years old and those who had an ASA classification of I or II. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Prolonged Opioid Usage Following Hip Fracture Surgery in Opioid-Naïve Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: While the risk of long-term dependence following the opioid treatment of musculoskeletal injury is often studied in younger populations, studies in older patients have centered on short-term risks such as oversedation and delirium. This study investigated prolonged opioid usage after hip fracture in older individuals, focusing on prevalence, risk factors, and changes over time. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of 47,309 opioid-naïve patients aged ≥ 60 years who underwent hip fracture surgery (2009 to 2020), outpatient opioid use was evaluated in 3 postoperative time periods: P1 (day 0 to 30 postsurgery); P2 (day 31 to 90); and P3 (day 91 to 180). The primary outcome was prolonged outpatient opioid use, defined as having one or more opioid prescriptions dispensed in all 3 time periods. RESULTS: The incidence of prolonged opioid usage among patients surviving to P3 was 6.3% (2,834 of 44,850). Initial prescription quantities decreased over time, as did the risk of prolonged opioid usage (from 8.0% in 2009 to 3.9% in 2019). In the multivariable analyses, risk factors for prolonged opioid usage included younger age, women, current/former smoking, fracture fixation (as compared to hemiarthroplasty), and anxiety. Prolonged opioid usage was less common among patients who were Asian or had a history of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: While prior research on the hazards of opioids in the elderly has focused on short-term risks such as oversedation and delirium, these findings suggest that prolonged opioid usage may be a risk for this older population as well. As initial prescription amounts have decreased, declines in prolonged opioid medication usage have also been observed.

Risk of Revision After Hip Fracture Fixation Using DePuy Synthes Trochanteric Fixation Nail or Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced: A Cohort Study of 7,979 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Prior reports of the DePuy Synthes Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced (TFNA) revealed a potential mode of fatigue failure at the proximal screw aperture following fixation of extracapsular hip fractures. We sought to compare the revision risk between the TFNA and its prior-generation forebear, the Trochanteric Fixation Nail (TFN). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from a U.S. integrated health-care system's hip fracture registry. The study sample comprised patients who underwent cephalomedullary nail fixation for hip fracture with a TFN (n = 4,007) or TFNA (n = 3,972) from 2014 to 2019. We evaluated the charts and radiographs for patients who underwent any revision. Multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate the risk of revision related to the index fracture. RESULTS: At the 3-year follow-up, the cumulative probability of revision related to the index fracture was 1.8% for the TFN and 1.9% for the TFNA. After adjustment for covariates, no difference was observed in revision risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80 to 1.75]; p = 0.40) for the TFNA compared with the TFN. The TFNA was associated with a higher risk of revision for nonunion than the TFN (HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.11 to 3.12]; p = 0.018). At the 3-year follow-up, implant breakage was 0.06% for the TFN and 0.2% for the TFNA; with regard to aperture failures related to the index fracture, there were 1 failure for the TFN group and 3 failures for the TFNA group. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort from a U.S. hip fracture registry, the TFNA had an overall revision rate that was similar to that of the earlier TFN, with implant breakage being a rare revision reason for both groups. Chart and radiographic review found that the TFNA was associated with a higher risk of revision for nonunion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Association Between the Femoral Stem Design Type and the Risk of Aseptic Revision After Hemiarthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Although noncemented hemiarthroplasty has been associated with a higher risk of revision surgery as compared with cemented fixation, it remains uncertain whether this increased risk applies to all noncemented stem design types or only a subset. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of aseptic revision associated with three common types of noncemented stem designs as compared with cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 60 years and older who sustained a hip fracture and underwent hemiarthroplasty between 2009 and 2018 at one of 35 hospitals owned by a large US health maintenance organization. Hemiarthroplasty fixation was categorized as cemented or noncemented, with the noncemented stems further classified as single wedge without collar, fit and fill without collar, or fit and fill with collar. The primary outcome was aseptic revision, and the median follow-up time was 4.8 years. RESULTS: Of 12,071 patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty during the study period (average age 82.0 ± 8.4 years, 67.9% women), 807 (6.7%) received a single-wedge stem without collar, 2,124 (17.6%) received a fit-and-fill stem without collar, 2,453 (20.3%) received a fit-and-fill stem with collar, and 6,687 (55.4%) received a cemented stem. Compared with cemented fixation, all the noncemented stem design types were associated with a markedly higher risk of aseptic revision in the multivariable analysis, including single wedge without collar (hazard ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38 to 2.89, P < 0.001), fit and fill without collar (HR 1.52, 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.04, P = 0.005), and fit and fill with collar (HR 2.11, 95% CI, 1.63 to 2.72, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the hemiarthroplasty treatment of elderly patients with hip fracture, all routinely used noncemented stem design types were associated with a higher risk of aseptic revision as compared with cemented fixation.

Rapidly Destructive Hip Disease Following Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injection of the Hip.

BACKGROUND: While recent reports have suggested that hip corticosteroid injections can hasten joint degeneration, there are few published data on the topic. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate for an association between corticosteroid injection and rapidly destructive hip disease (RDHD) and to determine the rate of, and risk factors for, occurrence. METHODS: This study was conducted in 2 parts. First, to assess for a potential association between hip corticosteroid injection and RDHD, a case-control analysis was performed. Patients who developed RDHD between 2013 and 2016 served as cases, whereas those who underwent total hip arthroplasty for diagnoses other than RDHD during the same period served as controls, and the exposure of interest was prior intra-articular hip corticosteroid injection. Second, in a retrospective cohort analysis, we analyzed all patients who received a fluoroscopically guided intra-articular hip corticosteroid injection at our institution from 2013 to 2016. The rate of post-injection RDHD was determined, and logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for occurrence. RESULTS: In the case-control analysis, hip corticosteroid injection was associated with the development of RDHD (adjusted odds ratio, 8.56 [95% confidence interval, 3.29 to 22.3], p < 0.0001). There was evidence of a dose-response curve, with the risk of RDHD increasing with injection dosage as well as with the number of injections received. In the retrospective cohort analysis, the rate of post-injection RDHD was 5.4% (37 of 688). Cases of post-injection RDHD were diagnosed at an average of 5.1 months following injection and were characterized by rapidly progressive joint-space narrowing, osteolysis, and collapse of the femoral head. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents an association between hip corticosteroid injection and RDHD. While the risk of RDHD following a single low-dose (≤40 mg) triamcinolone injection is low, the risk is higher following high-dose (≥80 mg) injection and multiple injections. These findings provide information that can be used to counsel patients about the risks associated with this common procedure. In addition, caution should be taken with intra-articular hip injections utilizing ≥80 mg of corticosteroid and multiple injections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The effect of a statewide COVID-19 shelter-in-place order on shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture volume and length of stay.

BACKGROUND: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted elective shoulder arthroplasty throughput, traumatic shoulder arthroplasty procedures are less apt to be postponed. We sought to evaluate shoulder arthroplasty utilization for fracture during the COVID-19 pandemic and California's associated shelter-in-place order compared to historical controls. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study with historical controls, identifying patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture in California using our integrated electronic health record. The time period of interest was following the implementation of the statewide shelter-in-place order: March 19, 2020-May 31, 2020. This was compared to three historical periods: January 1, 2020-March 18, 2020, March 18, 2019-May 31, 2019, and January 1, 2019-March 18, 2019. Procedure volume, patient characteristics, in-hospital length of stay, and 30-day events (emergency department visit, readmission, infection, pneumonia, and death) were reported. Changes over time were analyzed using linear regression adjusted for usual seasonal and yearly changes and age, sex, comorbidities, and postadmission factors. RESULTS: Surgical volume dropped from an average of 4.4, 5.2, and 2.6 surgeries per week in the historical time periods, respectively, to 2.4 surgeries per week after shelter-in-place. While no more than 30% of all shoulder arthroplasty procedures performed during any given week were for fracture during the historical time periods, arthroplasties performed for fracture was the overwhelming primary indication immediately after the shelter-in-place order. More patients were discharged the day of surgery (+33.2%, P = .019) after the shelter-in-place order, but we did not observe a change in any of the corresponding 30-day events. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of shoulder arthroplasty for fracture dropped during the time of COVID-19. The reduction in volume could be due to less shoulder trauma due to shelter-in-place or a change in the indications for arthroplasty given the perceived higher risks associated with intubation and surgical care. We noted more patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty for fracture were safely discharged on the day of surgery, suggesting this may be a safe practice that can be adopted moving forward. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; Retrospective Case-control Comparative Study.

Current Trends in the Evaluation and Management of Nondisplaced Femoral Neck Fractures in the Elderly.

Nondisplaced (Garden I and II) femoral neck (FN) fractures are commonly encountered by the practicing orthopaedic surgeon. Although these fractures are primarily classified based on the AP radiograph, the lateral radiograph should be closely scrutinized as well because posterior tilt has emerged as a consistent predictor of fixation failure. Internal fixation has for many years been the standard of care, with both cannulated screws and the sliding hip screw representing acceptable options. However, the outcomes after fixation of Garden I and II FN fractures have not been uniformly positive, with the rates of revision surgery ranging from 8% to 27%. Complications after fixation of nondisplaced FN fractures include nonunion, fixation failure, osteonecrosis, and femoral shortening causing inferior hip function. For these reasons, arthroplasty is increasingly considered a viable option in the treatment of these fractures, especially in the presence of factors that predispose to failure after fixation. Novel devices for FN fixation have recently been developed, although clinical data supporting their use are sparse at the present time.

Treatment of Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures with Long versus Short Cephalomedullary Nails.

CONTEXT: Prior studies regarding indications for long vs short cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures had limited sample sizes and follow-up, suggesting a need for further investigation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between cephalomedullary nail length and outcomes for the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures. DESIGN: Cohort study using Kaiser Permanente's Hip Fracture Registry. A total of 5526 patients who underwent surgical treatment with cephalomedullary nails for an intertrochanteric femur fracture (2009-2014) were identified: 3108 (56.2%) with long nails and 2418 (43.8%) with short nails. Cox proportional hazards model regression was used to evaluate risks of all-cause revision and revision for periprosthetic fracture. Linear regression was used to evaluate operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay. Propensity score weights were used in all models to balance nail groups on patient and device characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause revision surgery. RESULTS: No association was found in risk of all-cause revision (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-1.15) or revision for periprosthetic fracture (hazard ratio = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.23-1.48) for long nails compared with short nails. Use of longer nails resulted in 18.80 more minutes of operative time (95% CI = 17.33-20.27 minutes), 41.10 mL more of estimated blood loss (95% CI = 31.71-50.48 mL), and a longer hospitalization (8.4 hours; ß = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.12-0.58 hours). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that routine use of short cephalomedullary nails is safe and effective in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.

Association Between Uncemented vs Cemented Hemiarthroplasty and Revision Surgery Among Patients With Hip Fracture.

IMPORTANCE: Consensus guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that cemented fixation is more effective than uncemented fixation in hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures. Given that these recommendations are based on research performed outside the United States, it is uncertain whether these findings also reflect the US experience. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes associated with cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 12 491 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent hemiarthroplasty treatment of a hip fracture between 2009 and 2017 at 1 of the 36 hospitals owned by Kaiser Permanente, a large US health maintenance organization. Patients were followed up until membership termination, death, or the study end date of December 31, 2017. EXPOSURES: Hemiarthroplasty (prosthetic replacement of the femoral head) fixation via bony growth into a porous-coated implant (uncemented) or with cement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was aseptic revision, defined as any reoperation performed after the index procedure involving exchange of the existing implant for reasons other than infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, postdischarge, and overall), 90-day medical complications, 90-day emergency department visits, and 90-day unplanned readmissions. RESULTS: Among 12 491 patients in the study cohort who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture (median age, 83 years; 8660 women [69.3%]), 6042 (48.4%) had undergone uncemented fixation and 6449 (51.6%) had undergone cemented fixation, and the median length of follow-up was 3.8 years. In the multivariable regression analysis controlling for confounders, uncemented fixation was associated with a significantly higher risk of aseptic revision (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation, 3.0% vs 1.3%; absolute difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.77 [95% CI, 1.43-2.19]; P < .001). Of the 6 prespecified secondary end points, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hospital mortality (1.7% for uncemented fixation vs 2.0% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.73-1.21]; P = .61) and overall mortality (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation: 20.0% for uncemented fixation vs 22.8% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system, uncemented fixation, compared with cemented fixation, was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of aseptic revision. These findings suggest that US surgeons should consider cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the absence of contraindications.

The Association of Race/Ethnicity and Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes in a Universally Insured Population.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have documented racial/ethnic disparities in the United States for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes. One factor cited as a potential mediator is unequal access to care. We sought to assess whether racial/ethnic disparities persist in a universally insured TKA population. METHODS: A US integrated health system's total joint replacement registry was used to identify elective primary TKA (2000-2016). Racial/ethnic differences in revision and 90-day postoperative events (readmission, emergency department [ED] visit, infection, venous thromboembolism, and mortality) were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression with adjustment for confounders. RESULTS: Of 129,402 TKA, 68.8% were white, 16.2% were Hispanic, 8.4% were black, and 6.6% were Asian. Compared to white patients, Hispanic patients had lower risks of septic revision (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57-0.83) and infection (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.30-0.59), but a higher likelihood of ED visit (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.22-1.34). Black patients had higher risks of aseptic revision (HR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.42-1.83), readmission (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.02-1.24), and ED visit (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.23-1.39). Asian patients had lower risks of aseptic revision (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.54-0.83), septic revision (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.60-0.99), readmission (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.79-1.00), and venous thromboembolism (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.45-0.78). CONCLUSION: We observed differences in TKA outcome, even within a universally insured population. While lower risks in some outcomes were observed for Asian and Hispanic patients, the higher risks of aseptic revision and readmission for black patients and ED visit for black and Hispanic patients warrant further research to determine reasons for these findings to mitigate disparities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Orthopaedic Faculty and Resident Racial/Ethnic Diversity is Associated With the Orthopaedic Application Rate Among Underrepresented Minority Medical Students.

INTRODUCTION: Orthopaedic surgery is among the least diverse fields in all of medicine. To promote the recruitment of minorities, a commonly proposed strategy is to increase the exposure of minority medical students to orthopaedic surgeons and residents who are minorities themselves. This study examines the degree to which the racial/ethnic diversity of the orthopaedic faculty and residency program influences underrepresented in medicine (URM) medical students at that institution to pursue a career in orthopaedics. METHODS: Using data provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges, we identified all US medical schools that were affiliated with an orthopaedic department and an orthopaedic residency program (n = 110). For each institution, data were collected on URM representation among the orthopaedic faculty and residents (2013 to 2017), as well as the proportion of URM medical students who applied to an orthopaedic residency program (2014 to 2018). The association between institutional factors and the URM medical student orthopaedic application rate was then assessed. RESULTS: Of 11,887 URM students who graduated from medical school during the 5-year study period, 647 applied to an orthopaedic residency program (5.4%). URM students who attended medical school at institutions with high URM representation on the orthopaedic faculty were more likely to apply in orthopaedics (odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.55, P = 0.020), as were URM students at institutions with high URM representation in the residency program (odds ratio 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.79, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The benefits of a diverse orthopaedic workforce are widely acknowledged. In this study, we found that increased URM representation among the orthopaedic faculty and residents was associated with a greater likelihood that URM medical students at that institution would apply in orthopaedics. We also suggest a set of strategies to break the cycle and promote the recruitment of minorities into the field of orthopaedic surgery.