Periprosthetic fractures are osteoporotic fractures: missed opportunities for osteoporosis diagnosis.

Joint replacement surgery is common in older adults, leading to increasing periprosthetic fracture (PPFx) occurrence. We reviewed all PPFx seen over a 4-year period at an academic hospital. Clinical osteoporosis could be diagnosed based on existing data in 104 (67%) at the time of PPFx. Periprosthetic fractures are generally osteoporosis-related. PURPOSE: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFx) cause morbidity, mortality, and cost. This study's purpose was to describe osteoporosis-related data available at the time of PPFx. METHODS: The electronic medical record (EMR) of PPFx patients seen over 4 years in a university orthopedic practice were reviewed. Demographic data and osteoporosis relevant parameters were collected. Prior DXA studies were reviewed, and L1 Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements were performed on CT scans obtained within 2 years before PPFx. Clinical osteoporosis was defined as prior diagnosis, prescribed osteoporosis treatment, T-score ≤ - 2.5, HU ≤ 100, or prior fracture. RESULTS: Records of 156 PPFx patients (115 F/41 M), mean (SD) age 75.4 (11.9), were reviewed. Almost all 153/156 (98%) of these fractures were femoral. Falls caused 139 (89%); 12 (8%) were spontaneous. Mean time post-arthroplasty was 7.9 (6.3) years. Prior fragility fracture(s) occurred in 72 (46%); 14 were PPFx. Osteoporosis was previously diagnosed in 45 (29%) and medications prescribed in 41 (26%). Prior to PPFx, DXA data were available in 62, mean (SD) lowest T-score was - 1.9 (0.9) and was ≤ - 2.5 in 19. CT data were available in 46; mean (SD) L1 HU was 79.0 (29.4) and was ≤ 100 in 35. Based on existing data, clinical osteoporosis could have been diagnosed in 104 (67%) at the time of PPFx. CONCLUSION: Periprosthetic fractures are osteoporosis-related. They occur in older adults, often female, and result from falls; BMD, when assessed, is low. Data available at the time of PPFx often allows osteoporosis diagnosis; this should prompt evaluation and pharmacologic treatment consideration.

Open fractures: evidence-based best practices.

Open fracture management is a common challenge to orthopaedic trauma surgeons and a burdensome condition to the patient, health care, and entire society. Fracture-related infection (FRI) is the leading morbid complication to avoid during open fracture management because it leads to sepsis, nonunion, limb loss, and overall very poor region-specific and general functional outcomes. This review, based on a symposium presented at the 2022 OTA International Trauma Care Forum, provides a practical and evidence-based summary on key strategies to prevent FRI in open fractures, which can be grouped as optimizing host factors, antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical site management (skin preparation, debridement, and wound irrigation), provision of skeletal stability, and soft-tissue coverage. When it is applicable, strategies are differentiated between optimal resource and resource-limited settings.

Patient Satisfaction Following Non-Operative Treatment of Geriatric Hip Fractures: A Case-Control Study.

Introduction: A minority of geriatric hip fracture patients pursue non-operative treatment. Compared with surgical patients, non-operative patients have higher mortality rates. However, patient satisfaction following non-operative vs operative treatment has not been investigated extensively. The purpose of this study was to compare satisfaction among non-operatively vs operatively treated hip fracture patients. Methods: We identified patients aged 60+ years with proximal femur fractures treated over a 10-year period. Excluded were patients with isolated greater/lesser trochanteric fractures. Patients or relatives were asked to complete a 6-question survey about their treatment satisfaction. Results: Survey responses from 56 operative and 28 non-operative patients were recorded. Overall, 91.1% of operative and 82.1% of non-operative patients were satisfied with their treatment course (P = 0.260). However, only 71.4% of non-operative patients were satisfied with treatment option explanations vs 83.9% of operative patients (P = 0.014). While only 64.3% of non-operative respondents were satisfied with the ultimate treatment outcome (vs 85.7% of operative patients, P = 0.025), 89.3% of patients in each cohort would choose the same treatment plan again. Discussion: Our findings highlight the complexity of defining patient satisfaction, particularly in a geriatric hip fracture population. Unlike previous studies, we chose a direct approach to quantifying patient satisfaction by asking participants specifically about satisfaction with treatment outcome and the overall treatment course. Additional survey questions were then included to assess factors considered important in treatment satisfaction, such as health care provider treatment explanations, post-treatment mobility, and palliative care service involvement. Conclusions: We identified significant differences between non-operatively and operatively treated geriatric hip fracture patients regarding satisfaction with the explanation of treatment options, and ultimate treatment outcomes. There was no significant difference in overall satisfaction with the treatment course or likelihood of choosing the same treatment again. Further research investigating patient satisfaction following geriatric hip fracture treatment is warranted.

Does Topical Vancomycin Powder Use in Fracture Surgery Change Bacteriology and Antibiotic Susceptibilities? An Analysis of the VANCO Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intrawound vancomycin changes the bacteriology of surgical site infection pathogens and investigate the emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of phase III, prospective, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Thirty-six US trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Patients who became infected after fixation of tibial plateau or pilon fracture. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Pathogen types and bacterial susceptibilities as determined from routine clinical culture in the operating room. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were studied who were 67.5% male with a mean age of 48.6 years. A lower proportion of gram-positive cocci was observed in the vancomycin powder compared with the standard-of-care group (3.7% vs. 8.0%, P = 0.01). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection incidence was comparable in both the vancomycin powder and the standard-of-care groups, but rates of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infections were lower in the treatment group (1.4% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.01). The incidence of coagulase-negative Staphylococci and gram-negative rod infections were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in susceptibilities between groups in rates of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus. CONCLUSIONS: Topical vancomycin powder decreases the likelihood of gram-positive infections consistent with the biologic activity of vancomycin. Fewer methicillin-susceptible S. aureus and coagulase-negative Staphylococci infections were observed in the group treated with vancomycin powder. An effect of vancomycin powder on methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection risk was not detected given the low incidence in both the intrawound vancomycin and the standard-of-care groups. There was no emergence of gram-negative rod infections or increased resistance patterns observed. Use of topical vancomycin powder does not seem to produce infections in these patients with greater antibiotic resistance than would have occurred without its use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.