Routine follow-up is unnecessary after intramedullary fixation of trochanteric femoral fractures-Analysis of 995 cases

Application of an in-hospital, surgeon-led anti-osteoporotic medication algorithm in patients with hip fractures improves persistence to medication and can prevent the second fragility fracture

INTRODUCTION

Secondary fracture prevention is an essential part of hip fracture treatment. Despite this, many patients are discharged without the appropriate anti-osteoporotic medication. The aim of this study is to report the outcomes of the application of an in-hospital, surgeon-led anti-osteoporotic medication algorithm to patients with hip fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective cohort study followed patients with hip fractures who were treated at a tertiary referral hospital between 2020 and 2022. At discharge, anti-osteoporotic medication according to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) Foundation algorithm was prescribed to all patients. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to investigate the risks of non-persistence to medication and of secondary fracture.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirteen consecutive patients were prospectively followed. Mean follow-up was 17.2 ± 7.1 months. Persistence to medication at 2 years was 58% (95%CI 51-65%). A secondary osteoporotic fracture occurred in 1/126 (0.8%) persistent patients and 9/87 (11.4%) non-persistent patients. Multivariable Cox regression analysis confirmed that persistence to medication was significantly associated with a lower risk of secondary fracture (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR] 0.05; 95%CI 0.01-0.45; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The application of the surgeon-led AO Foundation algorithm enables the in-hospital initiation of anti-osteoporotic treatment, leading to better persistence to medication and decreased incidence of secondary osteoporotic fractures.

Missing the first post-operative visit is an independent risk factor for 90-day complication and re-admission following hip fracture surgery

Introduction

Knowing the risk factors for poor outcomes following hip fracture surgery is necessary for appropriate patient care. The objective of this study was to determine if the first post-operative visit (POV) following hip fracture surgery is a risk factor for increased mortality, complications, and re-admissions.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of 285 patients who underwent operative fixation of a hip fracture at an academic acute care hospital. Outcome measurements were 90-day and one year mortality, 90-day complications, and 90-day re-admission rates in patients who missed or attended their first post-operative visit following hip fracture surgery.

Results

279 patients met inclusion criteria and had sufficient data for analysis, of which 213 (76.3%) made their first post-operative visit. 90-day and one-year mortality were significantly higher in the patients who missed their first POV (31.8% vs. 4.2%; 51.5% vs. 12.7%). Independent risk factors for 90-day complications were missing the first POV, coronary artery disease, and lower pre-injury status (ORs = 10.65, 2.80, 7.89, respectively). Independent risk factors for 90-day re-admission were missing the first POV, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen, and lower re-injury status (ORs = 8.04, 5.44, 5.47, respectively).

Conclusion

Missing the first POV was the strongest independent risk factor for 90-day complications and 90-day readmission. Patients who miss their first POV have significantly higher 90-day and one year mortality rates.

Low-value injury care in the adult orthopaedic trauma population: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Fifteen potentially low value practices in adult orthopaedic trauma care were previously identified in a scoping review. The aim of this study was to synthesise the evidence on these practices.

METHODS

We searched four databases for systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case series that assessed the effectiveness of selected practices. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTAR-2) for systematic reviews and the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series. We evaluated risk of bias with the Cochrane revised tool for RCTs and the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool for observational studies. We summarised findings with measures of frequency and association for primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 30,670 records screened, 70 studies were retained. We identified high-level evidence of lack of effectiveness or harm for routine initial imaging of ankle injury, orthosis for A0-A3 thoracolumbar burst fracture in patients <60 years of age, cast or splint immobilisation for suspected scaphoid fracture negative on MRI or confirmed fifth metacarpal neck fracture, and routine follow-up imaging for distal radius and ankles fractures. However, evidence was mostly based on studies of low methodological quality or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

In this review, we identified clinical practices in orthopaedic injury care which are not supported by current evidence and whose use may be questioned. In future research, we should measure their frequency, assess practice variations and evaluate root causes to identify practices that could be targeted for de-implementation.

The (un)necessity of regular postoperative follow-up of hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures

BACKGROUND

Postoperative follow-up after hemiarthroplasty is part of routine based practice. However, these visits appear to be a significant burden since it concerns a frail population. The aim of this study was to confirm the current common practice regarding postoperative visits of patients treated with hemiarthroplasty and to evaluate the complication detection rate at these visits.

METHODS

A national short survey was conducted among orthopedic surgeons working in 26 large Dutch teaching hospitals to test the hypothesis that postoperative follow-up is indeed common practice. Furthermore, a retrospective patient review was performed in all hemiarthroplasties implanted between January 2014 and December 2019.

RESULTS

The response of the national survey was complete and showed that postoperative follow-up in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty is part of standard care according to 89% of respondents. A total of 1055 hips (1026 patients) were implanted with hemiarthroplasty during the studied period. Implant-related complications were identified in 68 hemiarthroplasties, with 31 of these hips going on to reoperation. Only 2 of these complications were picked up at standard planned follow-up leading to a complication detection rate of 0.3%. In contrast, complication detection rates of 47% and 16% were found at unplanned visits at the Emergency Department and the outpatient department, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative follow-up in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty is still the standard of care. However, this study revealed that the majority of implant-related complications are detected at unplanned visits and almost no at standard follow-up visits. Postoperative follow-up of patients treated with hemiarthroplasty could be abandoned in this frail population.

Minimizing Nonessential Follow-up for Hip Fracture Patients

Hip fractures pose a significant burden to patients and care providers. The optimal protocol for postoperative care across all surgically treated hip fracture patients is unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect that routine follow-up had on changing the clinical course.

The Fallacy of Follow-up: When Orthopaedic Trauma Patients Actually Return to Clinic

BACKGROUND

Clinical follow-up in orthopaedic trauma is challenging, yet expectations exist that a 1-year follow-up is the minimum requirement for clinical trials and research publications. The primary purpose of our study was to evaluate the rate of follow-up after operative orthopaedic trauma care and the relationship to clinical care. Our secondary aim was to identify any independent risk factors regarding follow-up completion.

METHODS

A chart review of patients operatively treated for a traumatic injury during the months of January and July 2016 was conducted. Patient demographic characteristics, injury type, severity, and patient distance from the hospital were collected. The final clinical instructions and whether a return visit was requested or as needed were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 293 patients in this study, of whom 84 (29%) had follow-up of at least 1 year and 52 (18%) were instructed to follow up only as needed at their last visit prior to the 1-year mark. When removing the latter 52 patients, the 1-year follow-up rate was 35% (84 of 241 patients). Of these 241 patients, 157 (65%) were requested to return for additional clinical care but failed to return prior to 1 year. Logistic regression identified tobacco use (odds ratio [OR], 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.15 to 0.77]; p = 0.010), final appointment status (OR, 6.3 [95% CI, 3.4 to 11.6]; p < 0.001), isolated compared with multiple fractures (OR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.1]; p = 0.013), and distance from the trauma center per mile as a continuous variable (OR, 0.999 [95% CI, 0.998 to 1.0]; p = 0.03) as significant predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that a 1-year clinic follow-up requirement may not be feasible. We observed a low rate of patients with a minimum 1-year clinical follow-up. Clinical care had been completed in 18% of patients prior to 1 year. Journal and grant reviewers may need to consider the feasibility and clinical relevance of these follow-up expectations.

Is There Value in Early Postoperative Visits Following Hip Fracture Surgery?

Introduction

Despite the recommendation for postoperative orthopedic follow-up after a hip fracture in elderly patients, many patients do not return for these visits. In this study, we attempt to determine if early follow-up (<4 weeks post-discharge) changes orthopedic post-operative management.

Materials and Methods

1232 patients aged > 55 years old who underwent operative fixation for hip fractures were enrolled into an orthopedic trauma registry and followed from hospitalization through one year. Demographics, comorbidities, injury severity, and hospital course data were collected. Need for readmission and orthopedic follow-up were ascertained through chart review.

Results

417 patients (33.8%) patients did not return for any follow-up and 30 (2.4%) patients died <30 days from discharge. 370 (45.5%) patients had early orthopedic follow-up ≤28 days after discharge. 317 (38.9%) patients were seen ≥29 days after discharge (late follow-up). 127 (15.6%) patients returned for isolated non-orthopedic care. There were 23 (6.2%) readmissions in the early group, 17 (5.4%) in the late group, and 24 (18.9%) in the no follow-up group (p < 0.001). Patients discharged home were more likely to present for early follow-up compared to those with late and non-orthopedic follow-up (p = 0.002), however there was no difference in readmission rates between those discharged home vs. SNFs/SARs.

Discussion

Patients who received isolated non-orthopedic follow-up within 4 weeks of surgery experienced more hospital readmissions than those with follow-up in that time period; however, these readmissions were primarily due to medical issues. There was no difference in orthopedic-related readmissions and changes in orthopedic management between groups. Patients discharged to SNFs/SARs did not present for early orthopedic as often as those discharged home.

Conclusion

Early orthopedic follow up after hip fracture care does not change post-operative management in these patients and has implications for value-based care.

Level of Evidence

Prognostic Level III.

Medically Necessary Orthopaedic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Safe Surgical Practices and a Classification to Guide Treatment

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly evolved as a viral pandemic. Countries worldwide have been affected by the recent outbreak caused by the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)-CoV-2 virus. As with prior viral pandemics, health-care workers are at increased risk. Orthopaedic surgical procedures are common in health-care systems, ranging from emergency to elective procedures. Many orthopaedic surgical procedures are life or limb-saving and cannot be postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic because of potential patient harm. Our goal is to analyze how orthopaedic surgeons can perform medically necessary procedures during the pandemic and to help guide decision-making perioperatively.

METHODS

We performed a review of the existing literature regarding COVID-19 and prior viral outbreaks to help guide clinical practice in terms of how to safely perform medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic for both asymptomatic patients and high-risk (e.g., COVID-19-positive) patients. We created a classification system based on COVID-19 positivity, patient health status, and COVID-19 prevalence to help guide perioperative decision-making.

RESULTS

We advocate that only urgent and emergency surgical procedures be performed. By following recommendations from the American College of Surgeons, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the recent literature, safe orthopaedic surgery and perioperative care can be performed. Screening measures are needed for patients and perioperative teams. Surgeons and perioperative teams at risk for contracting COVID-19 should use appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including N95 respirators or powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), when risk of viral spread is high. When preparing for medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic, our classification system will help to guide decision-making. A multidisciplinary care plan is needed to ensure patient safety with medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic can be performed safely when medically necessary but should be rare for COVID-19-positive or high-risk patients. Appropriate screening, PPE use, and multidisciplinary care will allow for safe medically necessary orthopaedic surgery to continue during the COVID-19 pandemic.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.