Thirty-day mortality following surgical management of hip fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from a prospective multi-centre UK study.

PURPOSE: Thirty-day mortality of patients with hip fracture is well researched and predictive; validated scoring tools have been developed (Nottingham Hip Fracture Score, NHFS). COVID-19 has significantly greater mortality in the elderly and comorbid patients which includes hip fracture patients. Non-operative treatment is not appropriate due to significantly higher mortality, and therefore, these patients are often exposed to COVID-19 in the peri-operative period. What is unclear is the effect of concomitant COVID-19 infection in these patients. METHODS: A multicentre prospective study across ten sites in the United Kingdom (responsible for 7% of hip fracture patients per annum in the UK). Demographic and background information were collected by independent chart review. Data on surgical factors included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, time to theatre, Nottingham Hip fracture score (NHFS) and classification of fracture were also collected between 1st March 2020 and 30th April 2020 with a matched cohort from the same period in 2019. RESULTS: Actual and expected 30-day mortality was found to be significantly higher than expected for 2020 COVID-19 positive patients (RR 3.00 95% CI 1.57-5.75, p < 0.001), with 30 observed deaths compared against the 10 expected from NHFS risk stratification. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection appears to be an independent risk factor for increased mortality in hip fracture patients. Whilst non-operative management of these fractures is not suggested due to the documented increased risks and mortality, this study provides evidence to the emerging literature of the severity of COVID-19 infection in surgical patients and the potential impact of COVID-19 on elective surgical patients in the peri-operative period.

Correction to: Thirty-day mortality following surgical management of hip fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from a prospective multi-centre UK study.

The published online version contains mistake, as the Fig. 1 legend should read "Kaplan-Meier survival curve for 30-day survival for 2020 cohort COVID-19 positive vs COVID-19 negative" whilst the Fig. 2 legend should read "Kaplan-Meier survival curve for 30-day survival 2020 COVID-19 negative group vs 2019 cohort".

Differences in trochlear parameters between native and prosthetic kinematically or mechanically aligned knees.

INTRODUCTION: Kinematic (KA) and mechanical (MA) alignment techniques are two different philosophies of implant positioning that use the same TKA implants. This might generate differences in the resulting prosthetic trochleae parameters between the two techniques of alignment. Our study aim was to test the following hypotheses : (1) mechanically or kinematically aligned femoral implant understuffs the native trochlear articular surface and poorly restores the native groove orientation, and (2) the orientation of the prosthetic trochlear groove and trochlear fill are different between MA and KA. METHODS: Three-dimensional models of the femur were made from segmentation of preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans (MRIs) of ten subjects with isolated medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. In-house planning and analysis software kinematically and mechanically aligned a modern cruciate retaining femoral component and determined differences in parameters of the trochlear fit between native and prosthetic trochleae, and between KA and MA prosthetic trochleae. RESULTS: The MA prosthetic trochleae did not fill (understuffed) the entire length of the native medial facet and the proximal 70% of the native groove and lateral facet, and oriented the trochleae groove 8° more valgus than native. The KA prosthetic trochleae understuffed the proximal 70% of the native trochleae, and had a groove 6° more valgus than native. The KA trochleae understuffed the medial facet distally and oriented the groove 2° less valgus and 3° more internally rotated than the MA trochleae. CONCLUSION: MA and KA prosthetic trochleae substantially understuff and create a prosthetic groove more valgus compared to native trochlear anatomy, and they also differed between each other regarding trochleae stuffing and groove alignment. Although randomized trials have not shown differences in patellofemoral complications between KA and MA, a femoral component designed specifically for KA that more closely restores the native trochlear anatomy might improve patient reported satisfaction and function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2 controlled laboratory study.

Mechanical alignment technique for TKA: Are there intrinsic technical limitations?

BACKGROUND: Mechanically aligned (MA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is affected by disappointing functional outcomes in spite of the recent improvements in surgical precision and implant designs. This might suggest the existence of intrinsic technical limitations. Our study aims to compare the prosthetic and native trochlear articular surfaces and to estimate the extent of collateral ligament imbalance, which is technically uncorrectable by collateral ligament release when TKA implants are mechanically aligned. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Conventional MA technique generates a high rate of prosthetic overstuffing of the distal groove, distal lateral trochlear facet and distal lateral femoral condyle (Hypothesis 1), and technically uncorrectable collateral ligament imbalance (hypothesis 2)? Disregarding the distal femoral joint line obliquity (DFJLO) when performing femoral cuts explains distal lateral femoral prosthetic stuffing and uncorrectable imbalance (hypothesis 3)? METHODS: Twenty patients underwent a conventional MA TKA. Pre-operative MRI-based 3D knee models were generated and MA TKA was simulated. Native and prosthetic trochlear articular surfaces were compared using in-house analysis software. Following the automatic determination by the planning software of the size of the extension and flexion gaps, an algorithm was applied to balance the gaps and the frequency and amplitude of technically uncorrectable knee imbalance were estimated. RESULTS: The conventional MA technique generates a significant slight distal lateral femoral prosthetic overstuffing (mean 0.6mm, 0.8mm, 1.25mm for the most distal lateral facet point, groove, and at the most distal point of lateral femoral condyle, respectively) and a high rate of type 1 and 2 uncorrectable knee imbalance (30% and 40%, respectively). The incidence of distal lateral prosthetic overstuffing (trochlea and condyle) and uncorrectable knee imbalance were strongly to very strongly correlated with the DFJLO (r=0.53 to 0.89). CONCLUSION: Conventional MA technique for TKA generates frequent lateral distal femoral prosthetic overstuffing and technically uncorrectable knee imbalance secondary to disregarding the DFJLO when adjusting the femoral component frontal and axial rotations, respectively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: level 4.

The kinematic alignment technique for TKA reliably aligns the femoral component with the cylindrical axis.

INTRODUCTION: Kinematic alignment (KA) technique is an alternative technique for positioning a TKA, which aims a patient-specific implant positioning in order to reproduce the pre-arthritic knee anatomy. Because reliability in implant positioning is of interest to obtain reproducible good functional results, our study tests the hypothesis that the medial and lateral distal and posterior positions of the planned and surgically implanted kinematically aligned femoral component are similar. METHODS: Preoperative knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and postoperative knee computed tomography (CT) of 13 patients implanted with a KA Persona® TKA (Zimmer, Warsaw, USA) using manual instrumentation (kinematically-aligned TKA procedure pack®, Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, USA) were segmented to create 3D femoral models. The kinematic alignment position of the femoral component was planned on the 3D model created from the preoperative MRI. Differences in the positions of the planned and surgically implanted kinematically-aligned femoral component were determined with in-house analysis software. RESULTS: The average differences between the medial and lateral distal and posterior positions of the planned and surgically implanted kinematically-aligned femoral component were inferior to 1mm and no statistically significant. In terms of variability, 62% (8/13) of performed implants matched all four positions within 1.5mm, and the maximum difference was 3mm. CONCLUSION: In this small series, intraoperative kinematic positioning of the femoral component with the specific manual instrumentation closely matched the planned position, which suggests that this technique reliably aligned the flexion-extension axis of the femoral component to the cylindrical axis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.