A rationale for universal tranexamic acid in major joint arthroplasty: overall efficacy and impact of risk factors for transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) therapy is effective in reducing postoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in total joint arthroplasty (TJA), yet uncertainty persists regarding comparative efficacy and safety among specific patient subgroups. We assessed the impact of a universal TXA protocol on RBC transfusion, postoperative hemoglobin (Hb), and adverse outcomes to determine whether TXA is safe and effective in TJA, both overall and in clinically relevant subgroups. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed on patients undergoing TJA at our institution spanning 1 year before and after the implementation of a universal protocol to administer intravenous (IV) TXA. The primary outcome was percentage of patients transfused, and secondary outcomes were perioperative Hb and occurrence of adverse events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, seizure, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and acute kidney injury ). Outcomes were compared in pre- and post-protocol groups with χ2 analysis. Logistic regression compared risk of transfusion in pre- and post-protocol subgroups of patients with differing risk for transfusion (anemia, body mass index [BMI], and sex). RESULTS: No differences were found in baseline patient characteristics across pre- and post-protocol groups (n = 1084 and 912, respectively). TXA use increased from 32.3% to 92.2% while transfusion rates decreased from 10.3% to 4.8% (p < 0.001). Postoperative Day 3 Hb increased from 95.8 to 101.4 g/L (p < 0.001). Logistic regression demonstrated reduced transfusion in post-protocol subgroups regardless of sex, anemia, or BMI (p < 0.001). No increase in adverse events was observed (p = 0.8451). CONCLUSIONS: Universal TXA was associated with a reduction of RBC transfusion, overall and in clinically relevant subgroups, strengthening the rationale for universal therapy.

Universal tranexamic acid therapy to minimize transfusion for major joint arthroplasty: a retrospective analysis of protocol implementation.

PURPOSE: Tranexamic acid (TXA) therapy can reduce red blood cell (RBC) transfusion; however, this therapy remains underutilized in many surgical patient populations. We assessed whether implementation of a protocol to facilitate universal administration of TXA in patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty would reduce the incidence of RBC transfusion without increasing adverse clinical outcomes. METHODS: We implemented a quality of care policy to provide universal administration of intravenous TXA at a dose of 20 mg·kg(-1) iv to all eligible patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty from October 21, 2013 to April 30, 2014. We compared data from an equal number of patients before and after protocol implementation (n = 422 per group). The primary outcome was RBC transfusion with secondary outcomes including postoperative hemoglobin concentration (Hb) and length of hospital stay. Adverse events were identified from the electronic medical records. Data were analyzed by a Chi square test and adjusted logistic and linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Implementation of the protocol resulted in an increase in TXA utilization from 45.8% to 95.3% [change 49.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 44.1 to 54.5; P < 0.001]. This change was associated with a reduction in the rate of RBC transfusion from 8.8% to 5.2%, (change -3.6%; 95% CI, -0.1 to -7.0; P = 0.043). Pre- and post-protocol mean [standard deviation (SD)] Hb values were similar, including the nadir Hb prior to RBC transfusion [72 (8) g·L(-1) vs 70 (8) g·L(-1), respectively; mean difference -1 g·L(-1); 95% CI, -3 to 5; P = 0.569]. Length of stay was not altered, and no increase in adverse events was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a perioperative TXA protocol was associated with both an increase in TXA use and a reduction in RBC transfusion following hip or knee arthroplasty. Adverse events and length of hospital stay were not influenced by the protocol.

A randomized controlled trial comparing Oxinium and cobalt-chrome on standard and cross-linked polyethylene.

The purpose of the investigation was to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes in four bearing surfaces. Eighty patients (91 hips) undergoing total hip arthroplasty between 2004 and 2007 were randomized to one of four bearing surfaces: (1) cobalt-chrome (CoCr) and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE); (2) CoCr and XLPE; (3) Oxinium and UHMWPE; and (4) Oxinium and XLPE. The mean follow-up for this study was 6.8 years. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes. The linear wear rates for the four groups were 0.241 mm/year, 0.076 mm/year, 0.238 mm/year and 0.061 mm/year respectively. HXLPE results in significantly less wear than UHMWPE. However, we found no significant reduction in wear rate by using Oxinium in place of CoCr femoral heads at early follow-up.

Outcomes following hip fracture surgery in adults with schizophrenia in Ontario, Canada: A 10-year population-based retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand immediate and long-term outcomes following hip fracture surgery in adults with schizophrenia. METHODS: Retrospective population-based cohort study leveraging health administrative databases from Ontario, Canada. Individuals aged 40-105 years with hip fracture surgery between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2019 were included. Schizophrenia was ascertained using a validated algorithm. Outcomes were: 30-day mortality; 30-day readmission; 1-year survival; and subsequent hip fracture within 2 years. Analyses incorporated Generalized Estimating Equation models, Kaplan-Meier curves, and Fine-Gray competing risk models. RESULTS: In this cohort study of 98,126 surgically managed hip fracture patients, the median [IQR] age was 83[75-89] years, 69.2% were women, and 3700(3.8%) had schizophrenia. In Fine-Gray models, schizophrenia was associated with subsequent hip fracture (sdRH, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), with male patients with schizophrenia sustaining a refracture 50 days earlier. In age- and sex-adjusted GEE models, schizophrenia was associated with 30-day mortality (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.54) and readmissions (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.25-1.56). Kaplan-Meier survival curves suggested that patients with schizophrenia were less likely to be alive at 1-year. CONCLUSIONS: Study highlights the susceptibility of hip fracture patients with schizophrenia to worse outcomes, including refracture, with implications for understanding modifiable processes of care to optimize their recovery.

Bone mineral density testing after fragility fracture: Informative test results likely.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients with fragility fractures who can be expected to have low bone mineral density (BMD) at the time of fracture and to assist FPs in deciding whether to refer patients for BMD testing. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest available dates through September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles reporting BMD test results of patients with fragility fractures who were managed in an orthopedic environment (eg, fracture clinic, emergency management by orthopedic surgeons, inpatients) were eligible for review. While the orthopedic environment has been identified as an ideal point for case finding, FPs are often responsible for investigation and treatment. Factors that potentially influenced BMD test results (eg, selection of fracture types, exclusion criteria) were identified. Studies with 2 or more selection factors of potential influence were flagged, and rates of low BMD were calculated including and excluding these studies. SYNTHESIS: The distribution of the proportion of persons with low BMD was summarized across studies using descriptive statistics. We calculated lower boundaries on this distribution, using standard statistical thresholds, to determine a lower threshold of the expected rate of low BMD. CONCLUSION: Family physicians evaluating patients with fragility fractures can expect that at least two-thirds of patients with fragility fractures who are older than 50 years of age will have low BMD (T score ≤ -1.0). With this a priori expectation, FPs might more readily conduct a fracture risk assessment and pursue warranted fracture risk reduction strategies following fragility fracture.

Juvenile arthritis patients report favorable subjective outcomes of hip arthroplasty despite poor standard outcome scores.

We evaluated midterm patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty in patients who had severe juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Thirty-one patients (49 hips), with a mean age of 29 years (range, 16-43 years), reported low hip pain and stiffness at follow-up (mean, 7 years; range, 3-17 years). Up to 92% were satisfied with their ability to perform various activities; 96% were satisfied with pain relief. A mean postoperative flexion arc of 96° was observed. Final 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, EuroQol in 5 dimensions, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, and Harris Hip scores were lower than reference populations, particularly for mobility, physical functioning, and social functioning subscores. Young adults with end-stage hip involvement and severe longstanding juvenile idiopathic arthritis expressed high satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty, which improved range of motion, pain, and stiffness, despite poor performance on widely used outcome measures.

Patient perceptions of the path to osteoporosis care following a fragility fracture.

Coordinator-based osteoporosis (OP) screening programs for fragility-fracture patients in orthopedic environments improve rates of OP testing and care, but there are still gaps in care. The purpose of this study was to understand the process by which patients decided whether to proceed with OP testing or care within these programs. Twenty-four fragility-fracture patients in the OP screening program at a large, urban, university hospital in Canada participated in one of five focus groups. Focus group transcripts were sorted and coded. Links between themes were developed to generate a description of the process leading to successful initiation of OP care after a fragility fracture. To initiate OP testing and care, patients had to both comprehend the link between their fragility fracture and OP, and make an action-oriented appraisal of what action to take. Several modifiable facilitators and barriers influenced the process between screening and undergoing OP testing and initiating treatment.

Hand appearance as a patient motivation for surgery and a determinant of satisfaction with metacarpophalangeal joint arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis.

PURPOSE: To determine patient motivations for surgery and satisfaction with outcomes for metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint arthroplasty in 3 domains (appearance, function, and pain) and whether patient-reported satisfaction correlates with standard outcome measures. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial of MCP joint implants, 33 patients with rheumatoid arthritis had primary MCP joint arthroplasty: 15 hands received Swanson implants, and 18 received NeuFlex implants. Range of motion, ulnar drift, grip strength, Sollerman hand function test, and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire were collected before surgery and 1 year after surgery. Preoperative patient motivations for and expectations of MCP joint arthroplasty were assessed for function, pain, and appearance. Patient-perceived improvement and satisfaction within the 3 domains and global satisfaction were assessed after surgery. RESULTS: Function was rated the most important motivator for surgery by 31 patients, pain by 22, and appearance by 15. Twenty-six patients rated 2 or more motivators equally high. Michigan Hand Questionnaire subscores were moderately correlated or weakly correlated with patient-reported satisfaction. The Sollerman score was weakly correlated with patient-reported satisfaction. Range of motion, ulnar drift, and grip strength were not correlated with patient-reported satisfaction. More patients stated that a much better improvement was obtained for appearance than for function or pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: Patient expectations of MCP joint arthroplasty were uniformly high. The greatest motivation for surgery was functional improvement. Pain was highly ranked, and 25 patients rated hand appearance as the first or second motivator. Patient satisfaction correlated poorly with traditional outcome measures and moderately with patient-reported outcomes. We conclude that appearance should be considered an important motivator for surgery and determinant of satisfaction. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.

Effect of head size and rotation on taper corrosion in a hip simulator.

AIMS: This study investigates head-neck taper corrosion with varying head size in a novel hip simulator instrumented to measure corrosion related electrical activity under torsional loads. METHODS: In all, six 28 mm and six 36 mm titanium stem-cobalt chrome head pairs with polyethylene sockets were tested in a novel instrumented hip simulator. Samples were tested using simulated gait data with incremental increasing loads to determine corrosion onset load and electrochemical activity. Half of each head size group were then cycled with simulated gait and the other half with gait compression only. Damage was measured by area and maximum linear wear depth. RESULTS: Overall, 36 mm heads had lower corrosion onset load (p = 0.009) and change in open circuit potential (OCP) during simulated gait with (p = 0.006) and without joint movement (p = 0.004). Discontinuing gait's joint movement decreased corrosion currents (p = 0.042); however, wear testing showed no significant effect of joint movement on taper damage. In addition, 36 mm heads had greater corrosion area (p = 0.050), but no significant difference was found for maximum linear wear depth (p = 0.155). CONCLUSION: Larger heads are more susceptible to taper corrosion; however, not due to frictional torque as hypothesized. An alternative hypothesis of taper flexural rigidity differential is proposed. Further studies are necessary to investigate the clinical significance and underlying mechanism of this finding. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):1004-1016.

Cost-Utility Analysis of the Ontario Fracture Screening and Prevention Program.

BACKGROUND: The Fracture Screening and Prevention Program (FSPP), a fracture liaison service (FLS), was implemented in the province of Ontario, Canada, in 2007 to prevent recurrent fragility fractures and to improve post-fracture care. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the current model of the FSPP compared with usual care (no program) from the perspective of the universal public health-care payer (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care [MOHLTC]), over the lifetime of older adults who presented with a fragility fracture of the proximal part of the femur, the proximal part of the humerus, or the distal part of the radius and were not taking medications to prevent or slow bone loss and reduce the risk of fracture (bone active medications). METHODS: We developed a state-transition (Markov) model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the FSPP in comparison with usual care. The model simulated a cohort of patients with a fragility fracture starting at 71 years of age. Model parameters were obtained from published literature and from the FSPP. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in 2018 Canadian dollars were predicted over a lifetime horizon using a 1.5% annual discount rate. Health outcomes included subsequent proximal femoral, vertebral, proximal humeral, and distal radial fractures. Scenario and subgroup analyses were reported. RESULTS: The FSPP had lower expected costs ($277 less) and higher expected effectiveness (by 0.018 QALY) than usual care over the lifetime horizon. Ninety-four percent of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) demonstrated lower costs and higher effectiveness of the FSPP. CONCLUSIONS: The FSPP appears to be cost-effective compared with usual care over a lifetime for patients with fragility fracture. This information may help to quantify the value of the FSPP and to assist policy-makers in deciding whether to expand the FSPP to additional hospitals or to initiate similar programs where none exist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

NeuFlex and Swanson metacarpophalangeal implants for rheumatoid arthritis: prospective randomized, controlled clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To compare postoperative range of motion (ROM) and function in a randomized prospective trial of Swanson and NeuFlex metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint implants. METHODS: A total of 33 patients who had rheumatoid arthritis underwent primary MCP arthroplasty of all 4 fingers in 40 hands; 20 received Swanson implants and 20 received NeuFlex implants. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of other connective tissue disorders and previous MCP joint surgery. All participants followed the same postoperative rehabilitation protocol. The primary outcome measure was active MCP flexion. Secondary outcomes included active MCP extension, arc of motion, ulnar drift, function (Jamar grip strength and Sollerman hand function test), and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire. Patients were assessed preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 62.5 years (Swanson) and 58.1 years (NeuFlex) (p = .03). A total of 19 of 20 hands (Swanson) and 14 of 20 hands (NeuFlex) were from female patients. Preoperative active ROM was not significantly different. At follow-up, both groups demonstrated increased active extension and arc of motion (p < .001), reduced active flexion and improved ulnar deviation (p < .001), increased mean Sollerman and Michigan Hand Questionnaire domain scores (p < .001), and improved grip strength (p = .03). Active MCP flexion was significantly greater in all 4 digits of hands with NeuFlex implants compared with Swanson implants. The NeuFlex group demonstrated a greater total arc of motion in the little finger. Implant groups were not significantly different by individual digit for active MCP extension, ulnar drift, and composite flexion. Functional outcomes did not differ between groups. Patients with Swanson implants reported higher Michigan Hand Questionnaire scores in the function and aesthetics domains. CONCLUSIONS: Both implant groups obtained satisfactory clinical improvement after MCP reconstruction of the hand. The NeuFlex group demonstrated superior ROM, whereas the Swanson group had better self-reported function and aesthetics, but not objectively measured function. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.

Increased tender point counts before and after total hip arthroplasty are associated with poorer outcomes but are not individually predictive.

In a prospective study, total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively (n = 95) to determine if tender points (TPs) are associated with poor THA outcomes. Patients with high follow-up TP counts had higher visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and sleep, higher follow-up Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (pain, stiffness, function), lower Health Assessment Questionnaire, Harris Hip, and Short Form 36 (physical functioning, bodily pain, physical component summary) scores. High follow-up TP were associated with increased pain, pain not relieved by surgery, poor function, and poor sleep. Visual analog scale pain and sleep, Short Form 36 (physical functioning, bodily pain), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and Harris hip scores improved significantly after THA; TP scores did not. Higher preoperative TP were predictive of higher follow-up TP but were poorly predictive of poor outcome measures after surgery in individual patients, suggesting that preoperative TPs are not [corrected] contraindicative for THA.

A sample of Canadian orthopedic surgeons expressed willingness to participate in osteoporosis management for fragility fracture patients.

OBJECTIVE: The orthopedic community is in a unique position to initiate and provide osteoporosis care in fragility fracture patients to prevent future hip fractures in a high-risk population. The attitudes and intentions of Canadian orthopedic surgeons in the domain of osteoporosis care are unknown. Our objective was to identify current attitudes and osteoporosis management practices and to determine their overall willingness to participate in osteoporosis care for fragility fracture patients. METHODS: A real-time interactive polling session was conducted at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association. RESULTS: Of the orthopedic surgeons who responded, 90.4% agreed that the current emphasis on osteoporosis in orthopedic practice is appropriate; 85.2% of surgeons indicated that they currently refer or personally investigate for osteoporosis, or both, in fragility fracture patients. CONCLUSION: Most of the Canadian orthopedic surgeons sampled consider themselves to be currently engaged or ready to engage in osteoporosis care for fragility fracture patients. Focus should now shift from education and persuasion to program support through provision of resources and system modification that will enable Canadian orthopedic surgeons to effectively manage osteoporosis in their fracture patients.

Surgery Insight: orthopedic treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis.

Longstanding rheumatoid arthritis (RA) leads to disability, caused mainly by joint destruction. The current goals of surgical intervention are to restore function and quality of life, prevent joint deterioration, relieve pain, and correct deformity. A number of different surgical treatment options are available to patients with RA, including synovectomy, arthrodesis, joint replacement, and soft tissue and special hand surgery; nonoperative management is also important. Decision-making and timing for orthopedic intervention are complex issues because of polyarticular involvement. Functional impairment, pain, and the subsequent loss of quality of life and inability to work have become the main considerations for surgical reconstruction. Early referral for orthopedic treatment can lead to improved functional benefit for patients with RA. The decision for orthopedic intervention should be established by an interdisciplinary team that includes rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons experienced in the surgery of RA. Priority should be given to the joint that causes the greatest disability and pain. Disease progression and pharmaceutical treatment options should be taken into consideration when establishing an orthopedic intervention protocol.

Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Osteoporosis Treatment Associated with Improved Outcomes: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and address patient-reported barriers in osteoporosis care after a fracture. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort of fragility fracture patients over 50 years of age was seen in a provincewide fracture liaison service. Followup interviews were done at 6 months for osteoporosis care indicators. Univariate statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics, osteoporosis-related outcomes, and reasons cited for not achieving them. Two phases of this program were compared (Phase I: education and communication, and Phase II: risk assessment education and communication). Phase II was further divided into those who fully participated and those who declined. RESULTS: Phase I (n = 3997) had lower testing and treatment rates than Phase II (n = 1363). Rates were highest in those confirmed as having participated in Phase II (n = 569). Phase II nonparticipants (n = 794) had results as in Phase I. In Phase I, the main patient-reported barriers for not visiting their physician or not having a bone mineral density (BMD) test were patient- and physician-oriented (e.g., being instructed by their physician to not have the BMD test). In Phase II, BMD testing was part of the program, thus the main barriers were around treatment choices. Phase II eligible nonparticipants experienced many of the same barriers as Phase I patients, with lower BMD testing rates (54.9% and 65.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Evaluating and addressing barriers to guideline implementation reduced those barriers and was associated with higher downstream treatment rates. Monitoring barriers in a program like this provides useful insights for program changes and research interventions.

Fracture Prevention in the Orthopaedic Environment: Outcomes of a Coordinator-Based Fracture Liaison Service.

BACKGROUND: Fracture liaison services focus on secondary fracture prevention by identifying patients at risk for future fracture and initiating appropriate evaluation, risk assessment, education, and therapeutic intervention. This study describes key clinical outcomes including bone mineral densitometry, physician assessment, and pharmacotherapy initiation in pharmacotherapy-naïve patients undergoing treatment for fragility fracture in a Canadian fracture liaison service. METHODS: We determined rates of post-fracture investigation and treatment for inpatients and outpatients with a fragility fracture seen in a coordinator-based fracture liaison service at an urban university trauma hospital. The program identified distal radial, proximal femoral, proximal humeral, and vertebral fragility fractures in female patients ≥40 years of age and male patients ≥50 years of age and provided education, bone mineral densitometry, inpatient consultation or outpatient specialist or primary care physician referral for bone health management, and documented patient follow-up. RESULTS: The 2,191 patients with a fragility fracture were not taking anti-osteoporosis pharmacotherapy at the time of identification (862 inpatients and 1,329 outpatients). Eighty-four percent of inpatients and 85% of outpatients completed a bone mineral densitometry as recommended. Fifty-two percent of patients with proximal femoral fracture, 29% of patients with vertebral fracture, 26% of patients with proximal humeral fracture, and 20% of patients with distal radial fracture had osteoporosis confirmed on the basis of a bone mineral densitometry T-score of ≤-2.5 at the femoral neck or L1 to L4. Eighty-five percent of inpatients and 79% of outpatients referred for bone health management were assessed by a specialist or primary care physician. Of the patients who attended their appointments, 73% of inpatients and 52% of outpatients received a prescription for anti-osteoporosis medication. CONCLUSIONS: A high rate of education, evaluation, and pharmacological treatment, if indicated, can be achieved through a coordinator-facilitated fracture liaison service program. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Fracture prevention programs are currently engaged in establishing and modifying fracture liaison services in a quest for practical and effective models. The program described in this article exemplifies a coordinator-based model that produced good outcomes.

Improvements in osteoporosis testing and care are found following the wide scale implementation of the Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening Program: An interrupted time series analysis.

We evaluated a system-wide impact of a health intervention to improve treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture. The intervention consisted of assigning a screening coordinator to selected fracture clinics to identify, educate, and follow up with fragility fracture patients and inform their physicians of the need to evaluate bone health. Thirty-seven hospitals in the province of Ontario (Canada) were assigned a screening coordinator. Twenty-three similar hospitals were control sites. All hospitals had orthopedic services and handled moderate-to-higher volumes of fracture patients. Administrative health data were used to evaluate the impact of the intervention.Fragility fracture patients (≥50 years; hip, humerus, forearm, spine, or pelvis fracture) were identified from administrative health records. Cases were fractures treated at 1 of the 37 hospitals assigned a coordinator. Controls were the same types of fractures at the control sites. Data were assembled for 20 quarters before and 10 quarters after the implementation (from January 2002 to March 2010). To test for a shift in trends, we employed an interrupted time series analysis-a study design used to evaluate the longitudinal effects of interventions, through regression modelling. The primary outcome measure was bone mineral density (BMD) testing. Osteoporosis medication initiation and persistence rates were secondary outcomes in a subset of patients ≥66 years of age.A total of 147,071 patients were used in the analysis. BMD testing rates increased from 17.0% pre-intervention to 20.9% post-intervention at intervention sites (P < .01) compared with no change at control sites (14.9% and 14.9%, P = .33). Medication initiation improved significantly at intervention sites (21.6-23.97%; P = .02) but not at control sites (17.5-18.5%; P = .27). Persistence with bisphosphonates decreased at all sites, from 59.9% to 56.4% at intervention sites (P = .02) and more so from 62.3% to 54.2% at control sites (P < .01) using 50% proportion of days covered (PDC 50).Significant improvements in BMD testing and treatment initiation were observed after the initiation of a coordinator-based screening program to improve osteoporosis management following fragility fracture.

Effective initiation of osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment for patients with a fragility fracture in an orthopaedic environment.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures resulting from osteoporosis are common injuries. However, the identification and treatment of osteoporosis in these high-risk patients are widely reported to be inadequate. The goals of this study were to determine how many patients receiving inpatient or outpatient treatment for a fragility fracture could be identified and enrolled in a program for osteoporosis education, investigation, and treatment and receive appropriate osteoporosis care within the program. METHODS: An Osteoporosis Exemplary Care Program was implemented to identify, educate, evaluate, refer, and treat patients considered to be at risk for osteoporosis because of a typical fragility fracture. System modifications included coordination among the orthopaedic unit, Metabolic Bone Disease Clinic, and nuclear medicine unit to provide a continuum of care for these patients. Barriers were addressed through ongoing education of physicians, staff, and patients to increase knowledge and awareness of osteoporosis. The percentages of patients previously diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, referred for investigation of osteoporosis, treated by the orthopaedic team, and receiving appropriate attention for osteoporosis were calculated. Risk factors for osteoporosis were also assessed. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-nine patients with a fragility fracture (221 outpatients and 128 inpatients) who met the inclusion criteria and an additional eighty-one patients with a fracture (fifty-five outpatients and twenty-six inpatients) who did not meet the inclusion criteria but were suspected by their orthopaedic surgeons of having underlying osteoporosis were enrolled in the Osteoporosis Exemplary Care Program. More than 96% (414) of these 430 patients received appropriate attention for osteoporosis. Approximately one-third (146) of the 430 patients had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis before the time of recruitment. Two hundred and twenty-two of the remaining patients were referred to the Metabolic Bone Disease Clinic or to their family physician for further investigation and treatment for osteoporosis. Treatment was initiated by the orthopaedic team for another twenty-three patients. Many patients had risk factors for osteoporosis in addition to the fragility fracture; these included a previous fracture (forty-nine of 187; 26%), a mother who had had a fragility fracture (forty-two of 188; 22%), or a history of smoking (105 of 188; 56%). CONCLUSIONS: In a coordinated post-fracture osteoporosis education and treatment program directed at patients with a fragility fracture and their caregivers, >95% of patients were appropriately diagnosed, treated, or referred for osteoporosis care. To accomplish this, a dedicated coordinator and the full cooperation of orthopaedic surgeons and residents, orthopaedic technologists, allied health-care professionals (nurses, physical and occupational therapists, and social workers), and administrative staff were required.

Posterior versus lateral surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty in adults with osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip is a progressive condition that has no cure and often requires a total hip arthroplasty (THA). The principal methods for THA are the posterior and direct lateral approaches. The posterior approach is considered to be easy to perform, however, increased rates of dislocation have been reported. The direct lateral approach facilitates cup positioning which may decrease rates of hip dislocation and diminishes the risk of injury to the sciatic nerve. However, there is an increased risk of limp. Dislocation of a hip prosthesis is a clinically important complication after THA, in terms of morbidity implications and costs. OBJECTIVES: To determine the risks of prosthesis dislocation, postoperative Trendelenburg gait and sciatic nerve palsy after a posterior approach, compared to a direct lateral approach, for adult patients undergoing THA for primary OA and to update the previous review made in 2003. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched and updated, from the previous search of 2002, to Oct 13, 2005. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published trials comparing posterior and direct lateral surgical approaches to THA in participants 18 years and older with a diagnosis of primary hip OA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Retrieved articles were assessed independently by the two reviewers for their methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: Four prospective cohort studies involving 241 participants met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcome, dislocation, was reported in two studies. No significant difference between posterior and direct lateral surgical approach was found [1/77 (1.3%) versus 3/72 (4.2%); relative risk (RR) 0.35; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.04 to 3.22]. The presence of postoperative Trendelenburg gait was not significantly different between these surgical approaches. The risk of nerve palsy or injury (all nerves taken together) was significantly higher among the direct lateral approaches [1/43 (2%) versus 10/49 (20%); RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.83]. However, there were no significant differences when comparing this risk nerve by nerve for both approaches, in particular for the sciatic nerve. Of the other outcomes considered only the average range of internal rotation in extension of the hip was significantly higher (weighted mean difference 16 degrees, 95% CI 8 to 23) in the posterior approach group (mean 35 degrees , standard deviation 13 degrees ) compared to the direct lateral approach (mean 19 degrees , standard deviation 13 degrees ). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality and quantity of information extracted from the trials performed to date are insufficient to make any firm conclusion on the optimum choice of surgical approach in adult patients undergoing primary THA for OA.

Comparison of CAROC and FRAX in Fragility Fracture Patients: Agreement, Clinical Utility, and Implications for Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the level of agreement between 2 fracture risk assessment tools [Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) and Canadian Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX)] when applied within the context of the Canadian guidelines, in a population of fragility fracture patients. METHODS: The sample consisted of 135 treatment-naive fragility fracture patients aged 50+ years and screened as part of an osteoporosis (OP) program at an urban hospital. Ten-year probabilities of future major osteoporotic fractures were calculated using the FRAX and CAROC. We also integrated additional qualifiers from the 2010 Canadian guidelines that place hip, spine, and multiple fractures at high risk regardless. A quadratic weighted κ (Kw) and 95% CI were calculated to estimate the chance corrected agreement between the risk assessment tools. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with concordance. RESULTS: Among patients with fragility fractures, the agreement between CAROC and FRAX was Kw = 0.64 (95% CI 0.58-0.71), with 45 of 135 cases in the cells reflecting disagreement. Younger persons and males were more likely to be found in discordant cells. CONCLUSION: The level of agreement between 2 commonly used fracture risk assessment tools was not as high in the patients with fragility fractures as it was in general community-based samples. Our results suggest discordance is found in less-typical patients with OP who need more consistency in messaging and direction. Users of these fracture risk tools should be aware of the potential for discordance and note differences in risk classifications that may affect treatment decisions.