A retrospective chart analysis with 5-year follow-up of early care for geriatric hip fracture patients: why we should continue talking about hip fractures.

BACKGROUND: Timing of surgery remains a topic of debate for hip fracture treatment in the geriatric patient population. The quality indicator "early surgery" was implemented in 2014 at the Department of Trauma Surgery of the University Hospitals Leuven to enhance timely operative treatment. In this follow-up study, we aim to evaluate the performance of this quality indicator, the clinical outcomes, and room for improvement. METHODS: The charts of 1190 patients surgically treated for an acute hip fracture were reviewed between June 2017 and May 2022 at the University Hospitals Leuven. Primary endpoints were adherence to early surgery, defined as surgery within the next calendar day, and the evaluation of the reasons for deviating from this protocol. Secondary endpoints were length of stay (LOS); intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of ICU stay; mortality after 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, and 6 months; and 90-day readmission rate. Pearson's Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for data analysis. RESULTS: One thousand eighty-four (91.1%) patients received early surgery versus 106 (8.9%) patients who received delayed surgery. The main reasons for surgical delay were the use of anticoagulants (33%), a general health condition not allowing safe surgery and/or existing comorbidities requiring workup prior to surgery (26.4%), and logistical reasons (17.9%). Patient delay and transfer from other hospitals were responsible for respectively 8.5% and 6.6% of delayed surgery. Early surgery resulted in a significantly shorter LOS and ICU stay (12 [8-25] vs. 18 [10-36] and 3 [2-6] vs. 7 [3-13] days, early vs. delayed surgery, respectively). No significant reduction was observed in ICU admission, mortality, and readmission rate. CONCLUSION: We have been able to maintain the early surgery hip fracture protocol in approximately 90% of the patients. Comorbidities and anticoagulant use were responsible for delayed surgery in the majority of the patients. Correct implementation of the existing protocol on anticoagulant use could lead to a one-third decrease in the number of delayed surgeries. Subsequently, since the LOS and ICU stay in the delayed surgery group were significantly longer, a further increase of early surgery will lower the current economic burden.

Ninety-Day Follow-up Is Inadequate for Diagnosis of Fracture-related Infections in Patients with Open Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fracture-related infection (FRI) is a challenging complication in musculoskeletal trauma surgery and often complicates the management of open fractures. The CDC currently advocates a surveillance period of 90 days after fracture fixation, but it is unclear what duration of follow-up constitutes adequate surveillance for FRI. Inadequate follow-up will underestimate infections and, in clinical research, will make any interventions studied appear better than they really are, thereby resulting in misleading conclusions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the timing of FRI onset in patients with open fractures? (2) What is the proportion of FRIs captured when follow-up is limited to 90 days postoperatively versus when follow-up is extended to 1 year? METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of patient data from a previous retrospective cohort study that investigated whether the duration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was independently associated with FRI in patients with open fractures. Of the 530 eligible patients in the source study, 3% (14) died. Of the remaining 516 patients, 97% (502) patients with 559 long-bone open fractures had 2 years of follow-up constituted the base cohort. Forty-seven fractures in 46 patients were complicated by FRI and were the focus of this secondary analysis. Medical records were reviewed in detail specifically for the current study. Seventy-eight percent (36 of 46) of patients were male, and the mean ± SD age was 42 ± 16 years. The most common mechanism of injury was a motor vehicle accident (63% [29 of 46] of patients), and the tibia was the most involved site (53% [25 of 47] of fractures). The median (interquartile range) time to debridement was 3.0 hours (IQR 2.0 to 4.0). FRIs developed in 3% (7 of 247) of Type I open fractures, 7% (11 of 164) of Type II, 17% (18 of 107) of Type IIIA, 29% (9 of 31) of Type IIIB, and 20% (2 of 10) of Type IIIC open fractures. Each clinic visit of each patient was reviewed, and data about the time of onset of any symptoms and signs suggesting or confirming an FRI, as reported by patients and/or determined by treating surgeons, were recorded. The proportions of FRIs with onset by specific time periods were determined. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed, and the FRI event rates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: The median (IQR) time to the onset of FRI was 52 days (IQR 15 to 153). Follow-up of 90 days captured only 64% (30 of 47) of FRIs, whereas follow-up of 1 year captured 89% (42 of 47) of FRIs. The proportion of FRIs with onset within 1 year increased to 95% (42 of 44) in the presence of an already healed fracture. CONCLUSION: Follow-up of 90 days after the management of an open long-bone fracture is inadequate for postoperative surveillance, especially for research purposes. Clinical research on interventions would report results appearing to be much better than they really are, potentially resulting in misleading conclusions. Follow-up of 1 year is preferable because most FRIs will develop before that time, especially when fracture union has occurred. A small percentage of patients may still develop infections beyond the first year after the management of an open fracture. The risk of missing these infections by not extending follow-up beyond 1 year must be balanced against the additional logistical burden. Future prospective multicenter studies and registries with long-term patient follow-up would help clarify this issue.Level of Evidence Level III, diagnostic study.

Reviving the debate: Articular cartilage preservation during disarticulation at the lower limb? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The need for preservation(P) or removal(R) of articular cartilage during disarticulations remains unanswered. METHODS: Medline database was used to conduct a systematic review regarding all types of minor disarticulations and some types of major disarticulations in patients with diabetes mellitus, peripheral arterial disease or trauma related disarticulations. Fisher-exact statistical test was used to perform calculations for the entire group as for subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 444 disarticulations at the Chopart joint, ankle and knee were included (P = 255 vs. R = 189). There was no difference in wound healing, functionality and mortality. Reamputation rate was lower in the P-group (9.4% vs. 16.9%). Infection rate was not significantly different. Differences in reamputations (R = 10.6% vs. P = 1.0%) and infections (R = 4.4% vs. P = 22.6%) were only present for the ankle subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in wound healing, functionality and mortality between the preservation and removal of articular cartilage in the lower limb.