Surgical interventions for treating intracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a considerable challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising rapidly. The majority of intracapsular hip fractures are treated surgically. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of all surgical treatments used in the management of intracapsular hip fractures in older adults, using a network meta-analysis of randomised trials, and to generate a hierarchy of interventions according to their outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and five other databases in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted backward-citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different treatments for fragility intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included total hip arthroplasties (THAs), hemiarthroplasties (HAs), internal fixation, and non-operative treatments. We excluded studies of people with hip fracture with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or resulting from high-energy trauma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for three outcomes at different time points: mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - both reported within 4 months, at 12 months, and after 24 months of surgery, and unplanned return to theatre (at end of study follow-up). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with Stata software, using frequentist methods, and calculated the differences between treatments using risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed direct comparisons using the same codes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 119 studies (102 RCTS, 17 quasi-RCTs) with 17,653 participants with 17,669 intracapsular fractures in the review; 83% of fractures were displaced. The mean participant age ranged from 60 to 87 years and 73% were women.  After discussion with clinical experts, we selected 12 nodes that represented the best balance between clinical plausibility and efficiency of the networks: cemented modern unipolar HA, dynamic fixed angle plate, uncemented first-generation bipolar HA, uncemented modern bipolar HA, cemented modern bipolar HA, uncemented first-generation unipolar HA, uncemented modern unipolar HA, THA with single articulation, dual-mobility THA, pins, screws, and non-operative treatment. Seventy-five studies (with 11,855 participants) with data for at least two of these treatments contributed to the NMA. We selected cemented modern unipolar HA as a reference treatment against which other treatments were compared. This was a common treatment in the networks, providing a clinically appropriate comparison. In order to provide a concise summary of the results, we report only network estimates when there was evidence of difference between treatments. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious and very serious risks of bias and when estimates included possible transitivity, particularly for internal fixation which included more undisplaced fractures. We also downgraded for incoherence, or inconsistency in indirect estimates, although this affected few estimates. Most estimates included the possibility of benefits and harms, and we downgraded the evidence for these treatments for imprecision.  We found that cemented modern unipolar HA, dynamic fixed angle plate and pins seemed to have the greatest likelihood of reducing mortality at 12 months. Overall, 23.5% of participants who received the reference treatment died within 12 months of surgery. Uncemented modern bipolar HA had higher mortality than the reference treatment (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.85; derived only from indirect evidence; low-certainty evidence), and THA with single articulation also had higher mortality (network estimate RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.32; derived from direct evidence from 2 studies with 225 participants, and indirect evidence; very low-certainty evidence). In the remaining treatments, the certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low, and we noted no evidence of any differences in mortality at 12 months.  We found that THA (single articulation), cemented modern bipolar HA and uncemented modern bipolar HA seemed to have the greatest likelihood of improving HRQoL at 12 months. This network was comparatively sparse compared to other outcomes and the certainty of the evidence of differences between treatments was very low. We noted no evidence of any differences in HRQoL at 12 months, although estimates were imprecise. We found that arthroplasty treatments seemed to have a greater likelihood of reducing unplanned return to theatre than internal fixation and non-operative treatment. We estimated that 4.3% of participants who received the reference treatment returned to theatre during the study follow-up. Compared to this treatment, we found low-certainty evidence that more participants returned to theatre if they were treated with a dynamic fixed angle plate (network estimate RR 4.63, 95% CI 2.94 to 7.30; from direct evidence from 1 study with 190 participants, and indirect evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence that more participants returned to theatre when treated with pins (RR 4.16, 95% CI 2.53 to 6.84; only from indirect evidence), screws (network estimate RR 5.04, 95% CI 3.25 to 7.82; from direct evidence from 2 studies with 278 participants, and indirect evidence), and non-operative treatment (RR 5.41, 95% CI 1.80 to 16.26; only from indirect evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of a tendency for an increased risk of unplanned return to theatre for all of the arthroplasty treatments, and in particular for THA, compared with cemented modern unipolar HA, with little evidence to suggest the size of this difference varied strongly between the arthroplasty treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variability in the ranking of each treatment such that there was no one outstanding, or subset of outstanding, superior treatments. However, cemented modern arthroplasties tended to more often yield better outcomes than alternative treatments and may be a more successful approach than internal fixation. There is no evidence of a difference between THA (single articulation) and cemented modern unipolar HA in the outcomes measured in this review. THA may be an appropriate treatment for a subset of people with intracapsular fracture but we have not explored this further.

Surgical interventions for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising. The majority of extracapsular hip fractures are treated surgically. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of all surgical treatments used in the management of extracapsular hip fractures in older adults, using a network meta-analysis of randomised trials, and to generate a hierarchy of interventions according to their outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and five other databases in July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different treatments for fragility extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included internal and external fixation, arthroplasties and non-operative treatment. We excluded studies of hip fractures with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or resulting from high-energy trauma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for three outcomes at different time points: mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - both reported within 4 months, at 12 months and after 24 months of surgery, and unplanned return to theatre (at end of study follow-up). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with Stata software, using frequentist methods, and calculated the differences between treatments using risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed direct comparisons using the same codes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 184 studies (160 RCTs and 24 quasi-RCTs) with 26,073 participants with 26,086 extracapsular hip fractures in the review. The mean age in most studies ranged from 60 to 93 years, and 69% were women. After discussion with clinical experts, we selected nine nodes that represented the best balance between clinical plausibility and efficiency of the networks: fixed angle plate (dynamic and static), cephalomedullary nail (short and long), condylocephalic nail, external fixation, hemiarthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty (THA) and non-operative treatment. Seventy-three studies (with 11,126 participants) with data for at least two of these treatments contributed to the NMA. We selected the dynamic fixed angle plate as a reference treatment against which other treatments were compared. This was a common treatment in the networks, providing a clinically appropriate comparison.  We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious and very serious risks of bias, and because some of the estimates included the possibility of transitivity owing to the proportion of stable and unstable fractures between treatment comparisons. We also downgraded if we noted evidence of inconsistency in direct or indirect estimates from which the network estimate was derived. Most estimates included the possibility of benefits and harms, and we downgraded the evidence for these treatments for imprecision.  Overall, 20.2% of participants who received the reference treatment had died by 12 months after surgery. We noted no evidence of any differences in mortality at this time point between the treatments compared. Effect estimates of all treatments included plausible benefits as well as harms. Short cephalomedullary nails had the narrowest confidence interval (CI), with 7 fewer deaths (26 fewer to 15 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07). THA had the widest CI, with 62 fewer deaths (177 fewer to 610 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.03). The certainty of the evidence for all treatments was low to very low. Although we ranked the treatments, this ranking should be interpreted cautiously because of the imprecision in all the network estimates for these treatments. Overall, 4.3% of participants who received the reference treatment had unplanned return to theatre. Compared to this treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence that 58 more participants (14 to 137 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if they were treated with a static fixed angle plate (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.50), and 91 more participants (37 to 182 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if treated with a condylocephalic nail (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.95 to 5.68). We also found that these treatments were ranked as having the highest probability of unplanned return to theatre. In the remaining treatments, we noted no evidence of any differences in unplanned return to theatre, with effect estimates including benefits as well as harms. The certainty of the evidence for these other treatments ranged from low to very low. We did not use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for early mortality, but our findings were similar to those for 12-month mortality, with no evidence of any differences in treatments when compared to dynamic fixed angle plate. Very few studies reported HRQoL and we were unable to build networks from these studies and perform network meta-analysis.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Across the networks, we found that there was considerable variability in the ranking of each treatment such that there was no one outstanding, or subset of outstanding, superior treatments. However, static implants such as condylocephalic nails and static fixed angle plates did yield a higher risk of unplanned return to theatre. We had insufficient evidence to determine the effects of any treatments on HRQoL, and this review includes data for only two outcomes. More detailed pairwise comparisons of some of the included treatments are reported in other Cochrane Reviews in this series. Short cephalomedullary nails versus dynamic fixed angle plates contributed the most evidence to each network, and our findings indicate that there may be no difference between these treatments. These data included people with both stable and unstable extracapsular fractures. At this time, there are too few studies to draw any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of arthroplasty or external fixation for extracapsular fracture in older adults. Future research could focus on the benefits and harms of arthroplasty interventions compared with internal fixation using a dynamic implant.

A blinded clinical study using a subepidermal moisture biocapacitance measurement device for early detection of pressure injuries.

This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of subepidermal moisture (SEM), a biomarker employed for early detection of pressure injuries (PI), compared to the "Gold Standard" of clinical skin and tissue assessment (STA), and to characterize the timing of SEM changes relative to the diagnosis of a PI. This blinded, longitudinal, prospective clinical study enrolled 189 patients (n = 182 in intent-to-treat [ITT]) at acute and post-acute sites (9 USA, 3 UK). Data were collected from patients' heels and sacrums using a biocapacitance measurement device beginning at admission and continuing for a minimum of 6 days to: (a) the patient developing a PI, (b) discharge from care, or (c) a maximum of 21 days. Standard of care clinical interventions prevailed, uninterrupted. Principal investigators oversaw the study at each site. Blinded Generalists gathered SEM data, and blinded Specialists diagnosed the presence or absence of PIs. Of the ITT population, 26.4% developed a PI during the study; 66.7% classified as Stage 1 injuries, 23% deep tissue injuries, the remaining being Stage 2 or Unstageable. Sensitivity was 87.5% (95% CI: 74.8%-95.3%) and specificity was 32.9% (95% CI: 28.3%-37.8%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.6713 (95% CI 0.5969-0.7457, P < .001). SEM changes were observed 4.7 (± 2.4 days) earlier than diagnosis of a PI via STA alone. Latency between the SEM biomarker and later onset of a PI, in combination with standard of care interventions administered to at-risk patients, may have confounded specificity. Aggregate SEM sensitivity and specificity and 67.13% AUC exceeded that of clinical judgment alone. While acknowledging specificity limitations, these data suggest that SEM biocapacitance measures can complement STAs, facilitate earlier identification of the risk of specific anatomies developing PIs, and inform earlier anatomy-specific intervention decisions than STAs alone. Future work should include cost-consequence analyses of SEM informed interventions.

The burden of periprosthetic femoral fractures in England and Wales: Insights from the first two years of data collection in the National Hip Fracture Database and regional variation in care.

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs) represent an important healthcare problem, with a rising incidence noted due to an increase in the number of arthroplasty surgeries being performed. There is a current lack of national consensus as to how these complex, often frail patients are managed. AIMS: Our primary aim was to present the epidemiology of PPFFs in England and Wales over the first two years of data collection by the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD). Secondary aims included how well the NHFD Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are met for PPFF patients, whether centres reporting a higher burden of PPFF patients are more likely to meet KPIs compared to lower volume centres, and to also identify if regional variation in care for these patients exist. METHODS: Patients aged 60 years or over, admitted to any acute hospital in England or Wales with a PPFF within the period 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2021 were included. Fractures were classified using the Vancouver system. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of PPFF in England and Wales. Secondary outcomes included i) geographical distribution, ii) pattern of injury, iii) treatment received, iv) KPI performance nationally, v) KPI performance by top 5 highest volume hospitals vs the rest, vi) KPI performance by region and vii) KPI performance compared with native hip fracture patients. RESULTS: A total of 5,566 PPFFs were reported during our study period. A 31 % increase in cases was seen between 2020 and 2021 (2,405 to 3,161). The South-West of England reported the highest burden of PPFFs (14 % of all cases reported in 2021). Vancouver B subtypes were most common around hip replacements (62 %) and C subtype around knee replacements (55 %). A total of 4,598 patients (82.6 %) underwent operative management. There was regional variation in KPI attainment. When compared to KPI attainment for native hip fractures PPFF care under performed in most regions and domains. High volume PPFF centres were not associated with improved attainment of KPIs. CONCLUSION: We have described the incidence, nature, and management of PPFF at national and regional levels using routinely collected NHFD data. Both numerically and due to case complexity, PPFF are a considerable challenge to patients and health services alike. This epidemiology is not captured by other existing datasets and increased case contribution to the NHFD is encouraged to improve understanding and enable prioritisation and delivery of further care and research.

The FAME trial study protocol: In younger adults with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting, is ankle function not worse than those treated with surgical intervention?

Aims: Ankle fracture is one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries sustained in the UK. Many patients experience pain and physical impairment, with the consequences of the fracture and its management lasting for several months or even years. The broad aim of ankle fracture treatment is to maintain the alignment of the joint while the fracture heals, and to reduce the risks of problems, such as stiffness. More severe injuries to the ankle are routinely treated surgically. However, even with advances in surgery, there remains a risk of complications; for patients experiencing these, the associated loss of function and quality of life (Qol) is considerable. Non-surgical treatment is an alternative to surgery and involves applying a cast carefully shaped to the patient's ankle to correct and maintain alignment of the joint with the key benefit being a reduction in the frequency of common complications of surgery. The main potential risk of non-surgical treatment is a loss of alignment with a consequent reduction in ankle function. This study aims to determine whether ankle function, four months after treatment, in patients with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting is not worse than in those treated with surgical intervention, which is the current standard of care. Methods: This trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial with an embedded pilot, and with 12 months clinical follow-up and parallel economic analysis. A surveillance study using routinely collected data will be performed annually to five years post-treatment. Adult patients, aged 60 years and younger, with unstable ankle fractures will be identified in daily trauma meetings and fracture clinics and approached for recruitment prior to their treatment. Treatments will be performed in trauma units across the UK by a wide range of surgeons. Details of the surgical treatment, including how the operation is done, implant choice, and the recovery programme afterwards, will be at the discretion of the treating surgeon. The non-surgical treatment will be close-contact casting performed under anaesthetic, a technique which has gained in popularity since the publication of the Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial. In all, 890 participants (445 per group) will be randomly allocated to surgical or non-surgical treatment. Data regarding ankle function, QoL, complications, and healthcare-related costs will be collected at eight weeks, four and 12 months, and then annually for five years following treatment. The primary outcome measure is patient-reported ankle function at four months from treatment. Anticipated impact: The 12-month results will be presented and published internationally. This is anticipated to be the only pragmatic trial reporting outcomes comparing surgical with non-surgical treatment in unstable ankle fractures in younger adults (aged 60 years and younger), and, as such, will inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'non-complex fracture' recommendations at their scheduled update in 2024. A report of long-term outcomes at five years will be produced by January 2027.

Modelling for conflict: the legacy of ballistic research and current extremity in vivo modelling.

Extremity ballistic injury is unique and the literature intended to guide its management is commonly misinterpreted. In order to care for those injured in conflict and conduct appropriate research, clinicians must be able to identify key in vivo studies, understand their weaknesses and desist the propagation of miscited and misunderstood ballistic dogma. This review provides the only inclusive critical overview of key studies of relevance to military extremity injury. In addition, the non-ballistic studies of limb injury, stabilisation and contamination that will form the basis from which future small animal extremity studies are constructed are presented. With an awareness of the legacy of military wound models and an insight into available generic models of extremity injury and contamination, research teams are well placed to optimise future military extremity injury management.

Digitalising patient reported outcome collection tools in orthopaedic trauma-A scoping review.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to provide a scoping review to the role of digital technology in the collection of orthopaedic trauma related patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O'Malley frameworks were followed. A search strategy identified relevant literature, with the identified criteria screened for acceptability for inclusion. Data was extracted to form a descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Six studies met the criteria for inclusion. All were quantitative, the majority were published in the United States of America and the use of iPads was the commonest form of digital technology used. Heterogeneity existed in the type of outcomes collected between studies. All studies aimed to compare traditional methods of PROMs collection to digital methods, with an overall thematic summary suggestive of the positive impact of electronic methods of collecting patient reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: This paper has demonstrated the dearth of ePROM implementation in the orthopaedic trauma setting, however its use has proved successful and therefore further evidence is needed to demonstrate its effectiveness. Furthermore, the types of PROMs in orthopaedic trauma varies significantly, and efforts to standardise the type of digital trauma PROMs used are recommended.

Caring for patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures across England and Wales in 2021.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement. Methods: This work used data freely available from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) facilities survey in 2021, which asked 21 questions about the care of patients with PPFFs, and nine relating to clinical decision-making around a hypothetical case. Results: Of 174 centres contributing data to the NHFD, 161 provided full responses and 139 submitted data on PPFF. Lack of resources was cited as the main reason for not submitting data. Surgeon (44.6%) and theatre (29.7%) availability were reported as the primary reasons for surgical delay beyond 36 hours. Less than half had a formal process for a specialist surgeon to operate on PPFF at least every other day. The median number of specialist surgeons at each centre was four (interquartile range (IQR) 3 to 6) for PPFF around both hips and knees. Around one-third of centres reported having one dedicated theatre list per week. The routine discussion of patients with PPFF at local and regional multidisciplinary team meetings was lower than that for all-cause revision arthroplasties. Six centres reported transferring all patients with PPFF around a hip joint to another centre for surgery, and this was an occasional practice for a further 34. The management of the hypothetical clinical scenario was varied, with 75 centres proposing ORIF, 35 suggested revision surgery and 48 proposed a combination of both revision and fixation. Conclusion: There is considerable variation in both the organization of PPFF services England and Wales, and in the approach taken to an individual case. The rising incidence of PPFF and complexity of these patients highlight the need for pathway development. The adoption of networks may reduce variability and improve outcomes for patients with PPFF.

The ORthopaedic Trauma Hospital Outcomes - Patient Operative Delays (ORTHOPOD) study.

Aims: This is a multicentre, prospective assessment of a proportion of the overall orthopaedic trauma caseload of the UK. It investigates theatre capacity, cancellations, and time to surgery in a group of hospitals that is representative of the wider population. It identifies barriers to effective practice and will inform system improvements. Methods: Data capture was by collaborative approach. Patients undergoing procedures from 22 August 2022 and operated on before 31 October 2022 were included. Arm one captured weekly caseload and theatre capacity. Arm two concerned patient and injury demographics, and time to surgery for specific injury groups. Results: Data was available from 90 hospitals across 86 data access groups (70 in England, two in Wales, ten in Scotland, and four in Northern Ireland). After exclusions, 709 weeks' of data on theatre capacity and 23,138 operations were analyzed. The average number of cases per operating session was 1.73. Only 5.8% of all theatre sessions were dedicated day surgery sessions, despite 29% of general trauma patients being eligible for such pathways. In addition, 12.3% of patients experienced at least one cancellation. Delays to surgery were longest in Northern Ireland and shortest in England and Scotland. There was marked variance across all fracture types. Open fractures and fragility hip fractures, influenced by guidelines and performance renumeration, had short waits, and varied least. In all, nine hospitals had 40 or more patients waiting for surgery every week, while seven had less than five. Conclusion: There is great variability in operative demand and list provision seen in this study of 90 UK hospitals. There is marked variation in nearly all injuries apart from those associated with performance monitoring. There is no evidence of local network level coordination of care for orthopaedic trauma patients. Day case operating and pathways of care are underused and are an important area for service improvement.

ORthopaedic trauma hospital outcomes - Patient operative delays (ORTHOPOD) Study: The management of day-case orthopaedic trauma in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: ORTHOPOD: Day Case Trauma is a multicentre prospective service evaluation of day-case trauma surgery across four countries. It is an epidemiological assessment of injury burden, patient pathways, theatre capacity, time to surgery and cancellation. It is the first evaluation of day-case trauma processes and system performance at nationwide scale. METHODS: Data was prospectively recorded through a collaborative approach. Arm one captured weekly caseload burden and operating theatre capacity. Arm two detailed patient and injury demographics, and time to surgery for specific injury groups. Patients scheduled for surgery between 22/08/22 and 16/10/22 and operated on before 31/10/22, were included. For this analysis, hand and spine injuries were excluded. RESULTS: Data was obtained from 86 Data Access Groups (70 in England, 2 in Wales, 10 in Scotland and 4 in Northern Ireland). After exclusions, 709 weeks worth of data representing 23,138 operative cases were analysed. Day-case trauma patients (DCTP) accounted for 29.1% of overall trauma burden and utilised 25.7% of general trauma list capacity. They were predominantly adults aged 18 to 59 (56.7%) with upper limb Injuries (65.7%). Across the four nations, the median number of day-case trauma lists (DCTL) available per week was 0 (IQR 1). 6 of 84 (7.1%) hospitals had at least five DCTLs per week. Rates of cancellation (13.2% day-case; 11.9% inpatient) and escalation to elective operating lists (9.1% day-case; 3.4% inpatient) were higher in DCTPs. For equivalent injuries, DCTPs waited longer for surgery. Distal radius and ankle fractures had median times to surgery within national recommendations: 3 days and 6 days respectively. Outpatient route to surgery was varied. Dominant pathways (>50% patients listed at that episode) in England and Wales were uncommon but the most frequently seen was listing patients in the emergency department, 16 of 80 hospitals (20%). CONCLUSION: There is significant mismatch in DCTP management and resource availability. There is also considerable variation in DCTP route to surgery. Suitable DCTL patients are often managed as inpatients. Improving day-case trauma services reduces the burden on general trauma lists and this study demonstrates there is considerable scope for service and pathway development and improved patient experience.

Lack of regional pathways impact on surgical delay: Analysis of the Orthopaedic Trauma Hospital Outcomes-Patient Operative Delays (ORTHOPOD) study.

INTRODUCTION: Current practice following injury within the United Kingdom is to receive surgery, at the institution of first contact regardless of ability to provide timely intervention and inconsiderate of neighbouring hospital resource and capacity. This can lead to a mismatch of demand and capacity, delayed surgery and stress within hospital systems, particularly with regards to elective services. We demonstrate through a multicentre, multinational study, the impact of this at scale. METHODOLOGY: ORTHOPOD data collection period was between 22/08/2022 and 16/10/2022 and consisted of two arms. Arm 1 captured orthopaedic trauma caseload and capacity in terms of sessions available per centre and patients awaiting surgery per centre per given week. Arm 2 recorded patient and injury demographics, time of decision making, outpatient and inpatient timeframes as well as time to surgery. Hand and spine cases were excluded. For this regional comparison, regional trauma networks with a minimum of four centres enroled onto the ORTHOPOD study were exclusively analysed. RESULTS: Following analysis of 11,202 patient episodes across 30 hospitals we found no movement of any patient between hospitals to enable prompt surgery. There is no current system to move patients, between regional centres despite clear discrepancies in workload per capacity across the United Kingdom. Many patients wait for days for surgery when simple transfer to a neighbouring hospital (within 10 miles in many instances) would result in prompt care within national guidelines. CONCLUSION: Most trauma patients in the United Kingdom are managed exclusively at the place of first presentation, with no consideration of alternative pathways to local hospitals that may, at that time, offer increased operative capacity and a shorter waiting time. There is no oversight of trauma workload per capacity at neighbouring hospitals within a regional trauma network. This leads to a marked disparity in waiting time to surgery, and subsequently it can be inferred but not proven, poorer patient experience and outcomes. This inevitably leads to a strain on the overall trauma system and across several centres can impact on elective surgery recovery. We propose the consideration of inter-regional network collaboration, aligned with the Major Trauma System.

Regional variation in the provision of major trauma services for the older injured patient.

INTRODUCTION: The establishment of national trauma networks have resulted in significant benefits to injured patients. Older people are the majority of major trauma patients and there is need to study variations in care and performance against clinical metrics for them. We aim to describe this patient group in terms of injury, demographics, episode of care assessment and variation between component regions of the Major Trauma Network of England and Wales. METHOD: The Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database was analysed from April 2017 to March 2019. Patients aged 65 years and above with injury severity score (ISS) greater than eight were selected for analysis. Patients were compared by care pathway in terms of first and second treating hospitals and by demographics, injury mechanism, severity, physiology at arrival to hospital (including Glasgow Coma Score (GCS)) and mortality, where known, at discharge. RESULTS: Fifty-three thousand three hundred and forty-seven older injured patients (median age 82.5 years and 58.2% female), were treated in 165 hospitals within the 17 regional trauma networks over the two-year study period. Aside from GCS and gender, all other patient characteristics were significantly different between networks and specifically, a large variation between the network with the highest proportion of older patients (60.4%) and that with a preponderance of younger patients (40.2%) is seen. 84% of cases were due to a fall <2 m and 36.7% of cases had a brain injury. 73.5% of cases had one or more comorbidities. DISCUSSION: We have increased the understanding of how older patients contribute to and are managed by a national trauma service. We have demonstrated variation in numbers and patient characteristics throughout regional trauma networks. We have detailed the whole patient episode, allowing us to comment on disparities in management such as senior review and access to specialist clinical care settings. Older patients dominate United Kingdom major trauma and considerable variations and shortfalls have been identified. Work is needed to focus on the whole clinical episode for these patients both to improve outcome and patient experience but to also to ensure sustainable clinical care in a resource deplete era.

Percutaneous Strain Reduction Screws Are a Reproducible Minimally Invasive Method to Treat Long Bone Nonunion.

OBJECTIVES: (1) Evaluate whether initial results from percutaneous treatment of nonunion are reproducible (2) Estimate the relative cost of percutaneous treatment of nonunion versus traditional methods. DESIGN: Retrospective multicentre case series. SETTING: Four Level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-one patients (34 men and 17 women) with a median age of 51 years (range 14-81) were treated for nonunion at a median of 10 months (range 4-212) from injury. INTERVENTION: Percutaneous strain reduction screws (PSRS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURED: Union rates and time to union were compared for patients treated in the developing institution versus independent units as well as with previously published results. RESULTS: Forty-five (88%) patients achieved union at a median time of 5.2 months (range 1.0-24.7) confirming the previously published results for this technique. Comparable results were seen between the developing institution and independent units. No patients experienced adverse events beyond failure to achieve union. PSRS seems to offer savings of between £3177 ($4416) to £11,352 ($15,780) per case compared with traditional methods of nonunion surgery. CONCLUSIONS: PSRS is a safe, efficacious treatment for long bone nonunion and may be more cost-effective than traditional nonunion treatment methods. The promising initial results of this technique have now been replicated outside of the developing institution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Variation of implant use in A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures : a study from the National Hip Fracture Database of England and Wales.

AIMS: Patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures represent a substantial proportion of trauma caseload, and national guidelines recommend that sliding hip screws (SHS) should be used for these injuries. Despite this, intramedullary nails (IMNs) are routinely implanted in many hospitals, at extra cost and with unproven patient outcome benefit. We have used data from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) to examine the use of SHS and IMN for A1 and A2 hip fractures at a national level, and to define the cost implications of management decisions that run counter to national guidelines. METHODS: We used the NHFD to identify all operations for fixation of trochanteric fractures in England and Wales between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021. A uniform price band from each of three hip fracture implant manufacturers was used to set cost implications alongside variation in implant use. RESULTS: We identified 18,156 A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures in 162 centres. Of these, 13,483 (74.3%) underwent SHS fixation, 2,352 (13.0%) were managed with short IMN, and 2,321 (12.8%) were managed with long IMN. Total cost of IMN added up to £1.89 million in 2021, and the clinical justification for this is unclear since rates of IMN use varied from 0% to 97% in different centres. CONCLUSION: Most trochanteric hip fractures are managed with SHS, in keeping with national guidelines. There is considerable variance between hospitals for implant choice, despite the lack of evidence for clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of more expensive nailing systems. This suggests either a lack of awareness of national guidelines or a choice not to follow them. We encourage provider units to reassess their practice if outwith the national norm. Funding bodies should examine implant use closely in this population to prevent resource waste at a time of considerable health austerity.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):741-745.

The Fragility Fracture Postoperative Mobilisation multicentre audit : the reality of weightbearing practices following operations for lower limb fragility fractures.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine the weightbearing practice of operatively managed fragility fractures in the setting of publically funded health services in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: The Fragility Fracture Postoperative Mobilisation (FFPOM) multicentre audit included all patients aged 60 years and older undergoing surgery for a fragility fracture of the lower limb between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2019, and 1 February 2021 and 14 March 2021. Fractures arising from high-energy transfer trauma, patients with multiple injuries, and those associated with metastatic deposits or infection were excluded. We analyzed this patient cohort to determine adherence to the British Orthopaedic Association Standard, "all surgery in the frail patient should be performed to allow full weight-bearing for activities required for daily living". RESULTS: A total of 19,557 patients (mean age 82 years (SD 9), 16,241 having a hip fracture) were included. Overall, 16,614 patients (85.0%) were instructed to perform weightbearing where required for daily living immediately postoperatively (15,543 (95.7%) hip fracture and 1,071 (32.3%) non-hip fracture patients). The median length of stay was 12.2 days (interquartile range (IQR) 7.9 to 20.0) (12.6 days (IQR 8.2 to 20.4) for hip fracture and 10.3 days (IQR 5.5 to 18.7) for non-hip fracture patients). CONCLUSION: Non-hip fracture patients experienced more postoperative weightbearing restrictions, although they had a shorter hospital stay. Patients sustaining fractures of the shaft and distal femur had a longer median length of stay than demographically similar patients who received hip fracture surgery. We have shown a significant disparity in weightbearing restrictions placed on patients with fragility fractures, despite the publication of a national guideline. Surgeons intentionally restrict postoperative weightbearing in the majority of non-hip fractures, yet are content with unrestricted weightbearing following operations for hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):972-979.

A prediction model for treatment decisions in distal radial physeal injuries: A multicenter retrospective study.

Background: There are no clearly defined guidelines for the management of distal radial physeal injuries. We aimed to identify the risk factors for patients with distal radial physeal trauma for the risk of deformity, physeal closure, and revision procedure and develop a predictive model. Methods: The retrospective study included patients less than 16 years old with displaced distal radial physeal injuries treated between 2011 and 2018 across five centers in the United Kingdom. Deformity was defined as a volar angulation of >11°, dorsal angulation of >15°, a radial inclination of <15° or >23°, or positive ulnar variance. Presence of a bony bar spanning the physis was considered physeal closure. Results: This study comprised of 479 patients. In that, 32 (6.6%) patients had a second procedure. Also, 49 (10.2%) patients had closure of physis, and 28 (6%) patients had deformity at the end of follow-up. The occurrence of deformity had a strong correlation with age (p = 0.04) and immobilization duration (p = 0.003). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that age >12.5 years (p = 0.006) and sagittal angulation of >21.7° (p = 0.002) had a higher odd of deformity. Immobilization for <4.5 weeks (p = 0.01) had a higher revision rate. The nomograms showed good calibration, with a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 75%. Interpretation: The nomograms provide accurate, pragmatic multivariate predictive models. Anatomical reduction is recommended in patients >12.5 years of age with >22° of dorsal angulation with cast immobilization for no less than 4.5 weeks. Any revision procedure should be performed within 11 days from the date of injury to reduce the risk of physeal damage.

The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study : epidemiology of open fracture care in the UK.

AIMS: Understanding of open fracture management is skewed due to reliance on small-number lower limb, specialist unit reports and large, unfocused registry data collections. To address this, we carried out the Open Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study, and report the demographic details and the initial steps of care for patients admitted with open fractures in the UK. METHODS: Any patient admitted to hospital with an open fracture between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 was included, excluding phalanges and isolated hand injuries. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture. Demographic details, injury, fracture classification, and patient dispersal were detailed. RESULTS: In total, 1,175 patients (median age 47 years (interquartile range (IQR) 29 to 65), 61.0% male (n = 717)) were admitted across 51 sites. A total of 546 patients (47.1%) were employed, 5.4% (n = 63) were diabetic, and 28.8% (n = 335) were smokers. In total, 29.0% of patients (n = 341) had more than one injury and 4.8% (n = 56) had two or more open fractures, while 51.3% of fractures (n = 637) occurred in the lower leg. Fractures sustained in vehicle incidents and collisions are common (38.8%; n = 455) and typically seen in younger patients. A simple fall (35.0%; n = 410) is common in older people. Overall, 69.8% (n = 786) of patients were admitted directly to an orthoplastic centre, 23.0% (n = 259) were transferred to an orthoplastic centre after initial management elsewhere, and 7.2% were managed outwith specialist units (n = 81). CONCLUSION: This study describes the epidemiology of open fractures in the UK. For a decade, orthopaedic surgeons have been practicing in a guideline-driven, network system without understanding the patient features, injury characteristics, or dispersal processes of the wider population. This work will inform care pathways as the UK looks to the future of trauma networks and guidelines, and how to optimize care for patients with open fractures.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):746-752.

The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study: the management of open fracture care in the UK.

AIMS: The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study was performed to provide clarity in open fracture management previously skewed by small, specialist centre studies and large, unfocused registry investigations. We report the current management metrics of open fractures across the UK. METHOD: Patients admitted to hospital with an open fracture (excluding phalanges or isolated hand injuries) between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 were included. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture software. All domains of the British Orthopaedic Association Standard for Open Fracture Management were recorded. RESULTS: Across 51 centres, 1,175 patients were analyzed. Antibiotics were given to 754 (69.0%) in the emergency department, 240 (22.0%) pre-hospital, and 99 (9.1%) as inpatients. Wounds were photographed in 848 (72.7%) cases. Median time to first surgery was 16 hrs 14 mins (interquartile range (IQR) 8 hrs 29 mins to 23 hrs 19 mins). Complex injuries were operated on sooner (median 12 hrs 51 mins (IQR 4 hrs 36 mins to 21 hrs 14 mins)). Of initial procedures, 1,053 (90.3%) occurred between 8am and 8pm. A consultant orthopaedic surgeon was present at 1,039 (89.2%) first procedures. In orthoplastic centres, a consultant plastic surgeon was present at 465 (45.1%) first procedures. Overall, 706 (60.8%) patients required a single operation. At primary debridement, 798 (65.0%) fractures were definitively fixed, while 734 (59.8%) fractures had fixation and coverage in one operation through direct closure or soft-tissue coverage. Negative pressure wound therapy was used in 235 (67.7%) staged procedures. Following wound closure or soft-tissue cover, 509 (47.0%) patients received antibiotics for a median of three days (IQR 1 to 7). CONCLUSION: OPEN provides an insight into care across the UK and different levels of hospital for open fractures. Patients are predominantly operated on promptly, in working hours, and at specialist centres. Areas for improvement include combined patient review and follow-up, scheduled operating, earlier definitive soft-tissue cover, and more robust antibiotic husbandry.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1073-1080.

Smoking and the patient with a complex lower limb injury.

Smoking is known to increase the risk of peri-operative complications in Orthoplastic surgery by impairing bone and wound healing. The effects of nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has been less well established. Previous reviews have examined the relationship between smoking and bone and wound healing separately. This review provides surgeons with a comprehensive and contemporaneous account of how smoking in all forms interacts with all aspects of complex lower limb trauma. We provide a guide for surgeons to refer to during the consent process to enable them to tailor information towards smokers in such a way that the patient may understand the risks involved with their surgical treatment. We update the literature with recently discovered methods of monitoring and treating the troublesome complications that occur more commonly in smokers effected by trauma.

Research priorities for the management of complex fractures: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: To determine research priorities for the management of complex fractures, which represent the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals. DESIGN/SETTING: A national (UK) research priority setting partnership. PARTICIPANTS: People who have experienced a complex fracture, their carers and relatives, and relevant healthcare professionals and clinical academics involved in treating patients with complex fractures. The scope includes open fractures, fractures to joints broken into multiple pieces, multiple concomitant fractures and fractures involving the pelvis and acetabulum. METHODS: A multiphase priority setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 21 months (October 2019 to June 2021). A national survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 18 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: A total of 532 uncertainties, submitted by 158 respondents (including 33 patients/carers) were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 58 unique indicative questions, of which all 58 were judged to be true uncertainties after review of the existing evidence. 136 people (including 56 patients/carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 18 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 research priorities for complex fracture include questions regarding rehabilitation, complications, psychological support and return to life-roles. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research complex fractures over the coming decade.