Patients with trochanteric hip fractures and pre-existing osteoarthritis can be treated with nailing osteosynthesis without significant decrease in functional status.

PURPOSE: Functional outcome in patients after trochanteric fracture fixation with pre-existing radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) is unclear. Analyzing their function and independence, before and after fracture, could optimize their treatment and decrease the socioeconomic burden in this particular group. METHODS: The influence of pre-existing radiographic hip OA on functional outcome was retrospectively analyzed with a cohort of patients undergoing proximal femoral nailing for trochanteric fracture. OA was graded according to the Tonnis classification. Functional outcome was assessed preoperatively and 12 months after surgery by the Parker Mobility Score (PMS). We consider a meaningful reduction a difference between preoperatively PMS and 12 months after surgery ≥ 2. In order to evaluate if OA is related to PMS reduction ≥ 2, we calculate the SubHazard ratio (SHR) performing a competing risk regression model considering death as a competing risk event, adjusting by confounders. Death, reoperations, readmissions, surgical time, and fracture reduction quality in patients with and without osteoarthritis were recorded. RESULTS: 375 trochanteric hip fractures treated with cephalomedullary nails were included, from which 80 (21% CI95% 17%-21%) were classified as Tonnis 2 or 3. This group of patients with pre-existing OA was significantly older (mean age of 88.6 [SD 5.65] vs 85.5 years [SD 6.95]) than the group without OA. The preoperatively PMS score was 6.28 (2.71) in non-OA patients and 5.69 (2.67) in OA patients. The mean PMS reduction 12 months after surgery was 1.3 (SD 2.05) in OA patients and 1.07 (SD 2.2) in non-OA patients (p = 0.43). Competing risks analysis, adjusted by confounders had an SHR of 1.15 (IC95% 0.77 - 1.69). Death, readmission, reoperations, surgical time, and fracture reduction quality did not differ in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pre-existing radiographic OA treated with femoral nailing have a similar reduction in functional outcomes compared to the non-OA group at one-year follow-up. Further studies will be needed to compare the results of the functional outcome in arthroplasty with those of femoral nailing for the treatment of trochanteric femur fractures in patients with OA.

Bisphosphonates and atypical femoral fractures: Is the location of the fracture associated with the time of consolidation?

INTRODUCTION: Bisphosphonates are commonly prescribed to mitigate the effects of osteoporosis, a condition associated with an increased risk of fracture. However, despite their success, there has been growing concern regarding the long-term use of bisphosphonates because of the increased risk of atypical subtrochanteric fractures of the femur (AFFs). The objective of this study was to describe a cohort of patients with AFFs and evaluate the risk of evolving to non-union, the time of consolidation associated with the location of the fracture, the time of use of the drug, and the implant involved in its treatment. METHODS: This retrospective study recruited patients between June 2008 and May 2018. We identified patients with AFFs according to the task force criteria and a history of bisphosphonate use. We included all patients older than 65 years, with long-term use of bisphosphonates, AFF criteria according to the task force, and a follow-up of 12 months or longer. We studied the following variables: the time of use of bisphosphonates, localization of the fracture according to Hyodo et al., implant use, and fracture healing time, considering the presence of bone callus observed in two radiologic projections, which were measured in weeks. RESULTS: Between June 2008 and May 2018, 72 patients met the task force criteria for AFFs. A total of 67 patients were included in this study. From this total, 37 were in the proximal region of the femur and 31 corresponded to the diaphyseal region. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed statistical significance in the time of bone healing compared with the different locations of the fracture along the femur. CONCLUSION: According to our study, the localization of AFFs in patients with a history of bisphosphonate use influences the duration of bone healing.

Selected Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished femoral components can be safely treated with osteosynthesis.

AIMS: We aimed to compare the implant survival, complications, readmissions, and mortality of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) treated with internal fixation with that of B1 PFFs treated with internal fixation and B2 fractures treated with revision arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 112 PFFs, of which 47 (42%) B1 and 27 (24%) B2 PFFs were treated with internal fixation, whereas 38 (34%) B2 fractures underwent revision arthroplasty. Decision to perform internal fixation for B2 PFFs was based on specific radiological (polished femoral components, intact bone-cement interface) and clinical criteria (low-demand patient). Median follow-up was 36.4 months (24 to 60). Implant survival and mortality over time were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Adverse events (measured with a modified Dindo-Clavien classification) and 90-day readmissions were additionally compared between groups. RESULTS: In all, nine (8.01%) surgical failures were detected. All failures occurred within the first 24 months following surgery. The 24-month implant survival was 95.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89.13 to 100) for B1 fractures treated with internal fixation, 90% (95% CI 76.86 to 100) for B2 PFFs treated with osteosynthesis-only, and 85.8% (95% CI 74.24 to 97.36) for B2 fractures treated with revision THA, without significant differences between groups (p = 0.296). Readmissions and major adverse events including mortality were overall high, but similar between groups (p > 0.05). The two-year patient survival rate was 87.1% (95% CI 77.49 to 95.76), 66.7% (95% CI 48.86 to 84.53), and 84.2% (95% CI 72.63 to 95.76), for the B1 group, B2 osteosynthesis group, and B2 revision group, respectively (p = 0.102). CONCLUSION: Implant survival in Vancouver B2 PFFs treated with internal fixation was similar to that of B1 fractures treated with the same method and to B2 PFFs treated with revision arthroplasty. Low-demand, elderly patients with B2 fractures around well-cemented polished femoral components with an intact bone-cement interface can be safely treated with internal fixation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1222-1230.

Are lateral view radiographs necessary to properly classify femoral neck fractures? Intra and interobserver analysis using Garden's classification system / [¿Es necesaria la incidencia radiográfica de perfil para clasificar las fracturas mediales de cadera? Análisis intra e inter observador utilizando la clasificación de Garden]

INTRODUCTION: Femoral neck fractures have been historically diagnosed by anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (L) radiographic views. We analyzed the importance of the L view for management of femoral neck fractures, using the Garden's classification system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Slides were elaborated with AP and L radiographic views of 100 patients with femoral neck fractures admitted to our emergency department. Three hip surgeons assessed independently AP views only and then AP and L views together using Garden's classification system. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences (Kruskal Wallis 0, p=1) were found while comparing categories among Garden's classification system, after assessing L views. There was an 81 % (p < 0.001) agreement of Garden category between AP and AP combined with L views. When analyzing patients with changing categories between displaced and non displaced after assessing L view images, we found a 5% (n=5, CI 95% 1-11%) of change. For comparing AP Garden with L view Garden, we used a quadratic weighted kappa method. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high agreement in the Garden category when comparing AP with combined AP and L observations. Five patients would have received a different surgical treatment dependent on the hip surgeon who assessed the radiographs. This highlights the relevance of routinely L radiographs whenever a femoral neck fracture is suspected.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Históricamente, el diagnóstico de una fractura medial de cadera requiere de una radiografía anteroposterior (AP) y de perfil (P). Nos propusimos analizar la importancia de la radiografía de perfil en la evaluación y planificación del tratamiento de las fracturas mediales de cadera, utilizando la clasificación de Garden. RESULTADOS: Se utilizó el método de Kruskal Wallis para comparar los rangos en la clasificación de Garden después de ver la proyección de P y no se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas (Kruskal Wallis 0, p=1). El acuerdo ponderado entre AP y el AP combinado con el P del Garden promedio fue de 81 % (p < 0.001). Se analizó el porcentaje de pacientes recategorizados entre fracturas no desplazadas y desplazadas, tras observar el perfil: 5% (n=5, IC 95% 1-11%) . Para comparar el Garden AP con el Garden P, se utilizó el método kappa ponderado cuadrático. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se prepararon diapositivas con radiografías AP y de P de 100 pacientes con fracturas mediales de cadera admitidos en nuestra central de emergencias.  Tres cirujanos de cadera evaluaron de forma independiente las incidencias AP únicamente y luego las vistas AP y P, utilizando la clasificación de Garden. RESULTADOS: Se utilizó el método de Kruskal Wallis para comparar los rangos en la clasificación de Garden después de ver la proyección de P y no se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas (Kruskal Wallis 0, p=1). El acuerdo ponderado entre AP y el AP combinado con el P del Garden promedio fue de 81 % (p < 0.001). Se analizó el porcentaje de pacientes recategorizados entre fracturas no desplazadas y desplazadas, tras observar el perfil: 5% (n=5, IC 95% 1-11%) . Para comparar el Garden AP con el Garden P, se utilizó el método kappa ponderado cuadrático. CONCLUSIONES: Existe una alta concordancia en la clasificación de Garden al comparar las observaciones de las radiografías AP, con las observaciones AP y P juntas. Cinco pacientes hubiesen recibido un tratamiento quirúrgico diferente dependiendo del especialista que interpretaba las radiografías. Esto permite destacar la importancia de solicitar la incidencia de perfil de rutina en pacientes con sospecha de fractura medial de cadera. palabras clave: cadera; fracturas de cadera; prótesis de cadera; lesiones de la cadera; radiografía.

¿Qué factores hacen fallar un reimplante de cadera luego de una revisión en dos tiempos? / What factors cause hip reimplantation to fail after a two-stage revision hip arthroplasty?

Introducción: El objetivo del estudio fue analizar la supervivencia sin recurrencia de infección en pacientes con reemplazo total de cadera tratados con revisión en dos tiempos, valorando el impacto del cultivo intraoperatorio y la congelación positiva en el reimplante. materiales y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo de 96 casos con infección periprotésica crónica, según los criterios de la MusculoSkeletal Infection Society, sometidos a los dos tiempos quirúrgicos en nuestra institución, entre 2008 y 2013. El seguimiento promedio fue 90 meses. La falla séptica se definió sobre la base de un consenso tipo Delphi modificado. La supervivencia sin falla séptica se definió sobre la base del estimador de Kaplan-Meier. Se compararon los resultados de supervivencia en función del cultivo intraoperatorio y de los estudios de anatomía patológica por congelación mediante la prueba del orden logarítmico. Resultados: La supervivencia sin falla séptica fue del 82,65% a los 2 años (IC95% 73,25-88,99%), 80,40% a los 5 años (IC95% 70,70-87,17%) y 77,32% a 6-10 años (IC95% 66,90-84,33%). Hubo significativamente más fallas en los pacientes con un cultivo positivo en el reimplante que en aquellos con un cultivo negativo (prueba del orden logarítmico, p = 0,0208), y en quienes tuvieron un estudio anatomopatológico por congelación positivo en el reimplante que en aquellos con un resultado negativo (prueba del or-den logarítmico, p = 0,0154). Conclusiones: Los reimplantes sin recurrencias infecciosas por, al menos, 6 años tuvieron un riesgo de falla séptica muy bajo. Cuando se detectó un cultivo o una congelación positivos, la falla séptica fue significativamente mayor. Nivel de Evidencia: IV

Background: We analyzed the survivorship free-from-septic failure in a series of THA cases treated with a two-stage protocol at long-term follow-up, with a special focus on the relevance of positive frozen section and positive intraoperative culture taken during the reimplantation. Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed data from 96 cases who met the Musculoskeletal Infec-tion Society criteria for periprosthetic joint infection and who had undergone both stages of a two-stage protocol at our institution between 2008-2013. Mean follow-up was 90 months. Treatment failure was determined with a modified Delphi-based consensus definition. Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to determine survivorship free-from-septic failure. Log-Rank test was used to compare variables associated with septic failure. Results: Survival free-from-septic failure was 82.65% at 2 years (95%CI 73.25%-88.99%), 80.40% at 5 years (95%CI 70.70%-87.17%) and 77.32% at 6-10 years (95%CI 66.90%-84.33%). Patients with a positive culture at reimplantation had significantly more septic failures than those without it (Log-Rank test, p=0.0208), while patients with a positive frozen section at reimplantation had significantly more septic failures than those without it (Log-Rank test, p=0.0154). Conclusions: Reimplantations that remained at least 6 years without septic recurrences had a very low risk of further septic failure. Both positive frozen section and intraoperative culture at reimplantation were risk factors for septic failure. Level of Evidence: IV