Streamlining orthopaedic trauma surgical care: do all patients need medical clearance?

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative medical optimization is necessary for safe and efficient care of the orthopaedic trauma patient. To improve care quality and value, a preoperative matrix was created to more appropriately utilize subspecialty consultation and avoid unnecessary consults, testing, and operating room delays. Our study compares surgical variables before and after implementation of the matrix to assess its utility. METHODS: A retrospective review of all orthopaedic trauma cases 6 months before and after the use of the matrix (2/2021-8/2021) was conducted an urban, level one trauma centre in collaboration with internal medicine, cardiology, anaesthesia, and orthopaedics. Patients were separated into two cohorts based on use of the matrix during the initial orthopaedic consultation. Logistic regressions were performed to limit significant differences in comorbidities. Independent samples t-tests and Chi-squared tests were used to compare means and proportions, respectively, between the two cohorts. RESULTS: In total, 576 patients were included in this study (281 pre- and 295 post-matrix implementation). Use of the matrix resulted in no significant difference in time to OR, LOS, readmissions, or ER visits; however, it resulted in 18% fewer overall preoperative consults for general trauma, and 25% fewer pre-operative consults for hip fractures. Older patients were more likely to require a consult regardless of matrix use. When controlling for comorbidities, patients with renal disease were at higher risk for increased LOS. CONCLUSION: Use of an orthopaedic surgical matrix to predict preoperative subspecialty consultation is easy to implement and allows for better care utilization without a corresponding increase in complications and readmissions. Follow-up studies are needed to reassess the relationships between matrix use and a potential decrease in ER to OR time, and validate its use.

Decreasing Postoperative Opioid Prescriptions After Orthopedic Trauma Surgery: The "Lopioid" Protocol.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a multimodal analgesic regimen containing "safer" opioid and non-narcotic pain medications in decreasing opioid prescriptions after surgical fixation in orthopedic trauma. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: One urban, academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Patients with traumatic fracture from 2018 (n=848) and 2019 (n=931). METHODS: In 2019, our orthopedic trauma division began a standardized protocol of postoperative pain medications that included 50 mg of tramadol four times daily, 15 mg of meloxicam once daily, 200 mg gabapentin twice daily, and 1 g of acetaminophen every 6 hours as needed. This multimodal regimen was dubbed the "Lopioid" protocol. We compared patients who received this protocol with all patients from the prior year who had followed a standard protocol that included Schedule II narcotics. RESULTS: Greater mean morphine milligram equivalents were prescribed at discharge from fracture surgery under the standard protocol than under the Lopioid protocol (252.3 vs 150.0; P < 0.001), and there was a difference in the type of opioid medication prescribed (P < 0.001). There was a difference in the number of refills filled for patients discharged with opioids after surgical treatment between the standard and Lopioid cohorts (0.31 vs 0.21; P = 0.002). There were no differences in the types of medication-related complications (P = 0.710) or the need for formal pain management consults (P = 0.199), but patients in the Lopioid cohort had lower pain scores at discharge (2.2 vs 2.7; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Lopioid protocol was effective in decreasing the amount of Schedule II narcotics prescribed at discharge and the number of opioid refills after orthopedic surgery for fractures.

Who Is the Geriatric Trauma Patient? An Analysis of Patient Characteristics, Hospital Quality Measures, and Inpatient Cost.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was 2-fold: 1) to investigate the age-related frequency, demographics and distribution of the middle-aged and geriatric orthopedic trauma population and 2) to describe the age-related frequency and distribution of hospital quality measure outcomes and inpatient cost. METHODS: All patients > 55 years of age who required orthopedic, trauma, or neurosurgery consults at 3 hospitals within an academic medical center from 2014 to 2017 were prospectively followed. On initial evaluation, each patient's demographics, injury severity, and functional status were collected. Patients were grouped into low and high-energy mechanism cohorts and divided into 5 groups based on age. Hospital quality measures including length of stay, complications, discharge location, and cost of care was compared between age groups. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: A total of 3965 patients were included in this study of which 3268 (82%) sustained low-energy trauma and 697 (18%) sustained high-energy trauma. With increasing age, more patients had more comorbidities, were less likely to be community ambulators, and more likely to use assistive devices (p < 0.05). Patients in older age groups had longer lengths of stay, more complications, were more likely to need ICU level care, and were less likely to be discharged home (p < 0.05). Rates of mortality were also greater in patients of more advanced age in both low and high-energy cohorts, and the calculated risk triage tool (STTGMA) score increased with each age bracket (p < 0.05). Total cost of care differed between age groups in the low-energy cohort (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: This epidemiological study provides a clear picture of the frequency and distribution of demographic, physiologic characteristics, outcomes, and cost of care in a middle-aged and geriatric orthopedic trauma population as evaluated by the STTGMA risk tool. Risk profiling of geriatric trauma patients allows for the establishment of baseline norms.

Modification of a Validated Risk Stratification Tool to Characterize Geriatric Hip Fracture Outcomes and Optimize Care in a Post-COVID-19 World.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To demonstrate how a risk assessment tool modified to account for the COVID-19 virus during the current global pandemic is able to provide risk assessment for low-energy geriatric hip fracture patients. (2) To provide a treatment algorithm for care of COVID-19 positive/suspected hip fractures patients that accounts for their increased risk of morbidity and mortality. SETTING: One academic medical center including 4 Level 1 trauma centers, 1 university-based tertiary care referral hospital, and 1 orthopaedic specialty hospital. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One thousand two hundred seventy-eight patients treated for hip fractures between October 2014 and April 2020, including 136 patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic between February 1, 2020 and April 15, 2020. INTERVENTION: The Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged ORIGINAL (STTGMAORIGINAL) score was modified by adding COVID-19 virus as a risk factor for mortality to create the STTGMACOVID score. Patients were stratified into quartiles to demonstrate differences in risk distribution between the scores. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Inpatient and 30-day mortality, major, and minor complications. RESULTS: Both STTGMA score and COVID-19 positive/suspected status are independent predictors of inpatient mortality, confirming their use in risk assessment models for geriatric hip fracture patients. Compared with STTGMAORIGINAL, where COVID-19 patients are haphazardly distributed among the risk groups and COVID-19 inpatient and 30 days mortalities comprise 50% deaths in the minimal-risk and low-risk cohorts, the STTGMACOVID tool is able to triage 100% of COVID-19 patients and 100% of COVID-19 inpatient and 30 days mortalities into the highest risk quartile, where it was demonstrated that these patients have a 55% rate of pneumonia, a 35% rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome, a 22% rate of inpatient mortality, and a 35% rate of 30 days mortality. COVID-19 patients who are symptomatic on presentation to the emergency department and undergo surgical fixation have a 30% inpatient mortality rate compared with 12.5% for patients who are initially asymptomatic but later develop symptoms. CONCLUSION: The STTGMA tool can be modified for specific disease processes, in this case to account for the COVID-19 virus and provide a robust risk stratification tool that accounts for a heretofore unknown risk factor. COVID-19 positive/suspected status portends a poor outcome in this susceptible trauma population and should be included in risk assessment models. These patients should be considered a high risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality. Patients with COVID-19 symptoms on presentation should have surgery deferred until symptoms improve or resolve and should be reassessed for surgical treatment versus definitive nonoperative treatment with palliative care and/or hospice care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of Levels of Evidence.

Increased Mortality and Major Complications in Hip Fracture Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A New York City Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To examine one health system's response to the essential care of its hip fracture population during the COVID-19 pandemic and report on its effect on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Seven musculoskeletal care centers within New York City and Long Island. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-eight recent and 115 historical hip fracture patients. INTERVENTION: Patients with hip fractures occurring between February 1, 2020, and April 15, 2020, or between February 1, 2019, and April 15, 2019, were prospectively enrolled in an orthopaedic trauma registry and chart reviewed for demographic and hospital quality measures. Patients with recent hip fractures were identified as COVID positive (C+), COVID suspected (Cs), or COVID negative (C-). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Hospital quality measures, inpatient complications, and mortality rates. RESULTS: Seventeen (12.2%) patients were confirmed C+ by testing, and another 14 (10.1%) were suspected (Cs) of having had the virus but were never tested. The C+ cohort, when compared with Cs and C- cohorts, had an increased mortality rate (35.3% vs. 7.1% vs. 0.9%), increased length of hospital stay, a greater major complication rate, and a greater incidence of ventilator need postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a devastating effect on the care of patients with hip fracture during the pandemic. Although practice patterns generally remained unchanged, treating physicians need to understand the increased morbidity and mortality in patients with hip fracture complicated by COVID-19. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of Levels of Evidence.

Recombinant human BMP-2 and allograft compared with autogenous bone graft for reconstruction of diaphyseal tibial fractures with cortical defects. A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the treatment of diaphyseal tibial fractures associated with substantial bone loss often involves autogenous bone-grafting as part of a staged reconstruction. Although this technique results in high healing rates, the donor-site morbidity and potentially limited supply of suitable autogenous bone in some patients are commonly recognized drawbacks. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the benefit and safety of the osteoinductive protein recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) when implanted on an absorbable collagen sponge in combination with freeze-dried cancellous allograft. METHODS: Adult patients with a tibial diaphyseal fracture and a residual cortical defect were randomly assigned to receive either autogenous bone graft or allograft (cancellous bone chips) for staged reconstruction of the tibial defect. Patients in the allograft group also received an onlay application of rhBMP-2 on an absorbable collagen sponge. The clinical evaluation of fracture-healing included an assessment of pain with full weight-bearing and fracture-site tenderness. The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) was administered before and after treatment. Radiographs were used to document union, the presence of extracortical bridging callus, and incorporation of the bone-graft material. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were enrolled in each group. The mean length of the defect was 4 cm (range, 1 to 7 cm). Ten patients in the autograft group and thirteen patients in the rhBMP-2/allograft group had healing without further intervention. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the rhBMP-2/allograft group. Improvement in the SMFA scores was comparable between the groups. No patient in the rhBMP-2/allograft group had development of antibodies to BMP-2; one patient had development of transient antibodies to bovine type-I collagen. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that rhBMP-2/allograft is safe and as effective as traditional autogenous bone-grafting for the treatment of tibial fractures associated with extensive traumatic diaphyseal bone loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.