Results after introduction of a hip fracture care pathway: comparison with usual care.

Background and purpose - We established a care pathway for hip fracture patients, a "Hip Fracture Unit" (HFU), aiming to provide better in-hospital care and thus improve outcome. We compared the results after introduction of the HFU with a historical control group.Patients and methods - The HFU consisted of a series of measures within the orthopedic ward, such as reducing preoperative waiting time, increased use of nerve blocks, early mobilization, and osteoporosis treatment. 276 patients admitted from May 2014 to May 2015 constituted the HFU group and 167 patients admitted from September 2009 to January 2012 constituted the historical control group. Patients were followed prospectively up to 12 months post fracture.Results - Mean preoperative waiting time was 24 hours in the HFU group and 29 hours in the control group (p = 0.003). 123 patients (47%) in the HFU were started on anti-osteoporosis treatment while in hospital. "Short Physical Performance Battery" score (SPPB) was mean 5.5 in the HFU group and 3.8 in the control group at 4 months (p < 0.001), and 5.7 vs. 3.6 at 12 months (p < 0.001). The mortality rate at 4 months was 15% in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found in readmissions, complications, new nursing home admissions, in Barthel ADL index or a mental capacity test at the follow-ups.

Higher cartilage wear in unipolar than bipolar hemiarthroplasties of the hip at 2 years: A randomized controlled radiostereometric study in 19 fit elderly patients with femoral neck fractures.

Background and purpose - The use of unipolar hemi-arthroplasties for femoral neck fractures is increasing in some countries due to reports of higher reoperation rates in bipolar prostheses. On the other hand, it has been proposed that bipolar hemiarthroplasties have clinical advantages and less cartilage wear than unipolar hemiarthroplasties. We compared cartilage wear between bipolar and unipolar hemiarthroplasties using radiostereometric analyses (RSA), in patients aged 70 years or older. Patients and methods - 28 ambulatory, lucid patients were randomized to treatment with a unipolar or a bipolar hemiarthroplasty for an acute femoral neck fracture. Migration of the prosthetic head into the acetabulum was measured using RSA. Secondary outcomes were Harris Hip Score (HHS), and EQ-5D scores. Patients were assessed at 3, 12. and 24 months. Results - 19 patients were available for follow-up at 2 years: mean proximal penetration was 0.83 mm in the unipolar group and 0.24 mm in the bipolar group (p = 0.01). Mean total point movement was 1.3 mm in the unipolar group and 0.95 mm in the bipolar group (p = 0.3). Median HHS was 78 (62-96) in the unipolar group and 100 (70-100) in the bipolar group (p = 0.004). Median EQ-5D Index Score was 0.73 (0.52-1.00) in the unipolar group and 1.00 (0.74-1.00) in the bipolar group (p = 0.01). Median EQ-5D VAS was 70 (50-90) in the unipolar group and 89 (70-95) in the bipolar group (p = 0.03) Interpretation - Patients with unipolar hemiarthroplasties had higher proximal cartilage wear and lower functional outcomes. Unipolar hemiarthroplasties should be used with caution in ambulatory, lucid patients.

Posterior versus lateral approach for hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fracture: Early complications in a prospective cohort of 583 patients.

AIM: To compare early complications after the posterior and the direct lateral (transgluteal) approach, when using hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective clinical study from four Norwegian hospitals, consisting of 583 patients with 1year follow-up. All the hospitals used the same uncemented femoral stem and bipolar heads. Data were collected for gender, age, surgical approach, prosthetic dislocation, postoperative infection, perioperative fracture, duration of surgery, ASA score, diabetes, alcoholism, cognitive failure, BMI, 30-day mortality and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Mean age was 83 years (SD 7.8) and 434/583 (74%) were female. There were no relevant differences between the treatment groups. A higher risk was found for prosthetic dislocation in the posterior group compared to the lateral group (15/186 (8%) vs. 4/397 (1%); RR=8.0, 95% CI 2.7-23.8, p-value<0.001), both as a one-time event and for the risk of recurrent dislocations (9/186 (5%) vs. 2/395 (0.5%); RR 9.6, 95% CI 2.1-44.0, p-value=0.001). 11/19 patients with dislocation had recurrent dislocations. 10/11 patients with more than one dislocation needed further open surgery. Of those 6/10 needed more than one additional open procedure. Three patients had a resection arthroplasty and one patient had a chronic infection as final result after a dislocation. No other risk factor for dislocation than surgical approach was identified. There were no differences between the approach groups for other complications. CONCLUSION: There was an 8-fold increased risk for prosthetic dislocations after the posterior approach compared to lateral approach. There was a high risk for recurrent prosthetic dislocations and a subsequent risk for further surgeries and a poor end result. The potential advantages of the posterior approach have not been demonstrated after femoral neck fractures and we advise against its continued use.