Surgical Technical Evidence Review of Hip Fracture Surgery Conducted for the AHRQ Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery

Anaesthetic choice for hip or knee arthroplasty in New Zealand: Risk of postoperative death and variations in use

Anaesthetic choice for large joint surgery can impact postoperative outcomes, including mortality. The extent to which the impact of anaesthetic choice on postoperative mortality varies within patient populations and the extent to which anaesthetic choice is changing over time remain under-explored both internationally and in the diverse New Zealand context. In a national study of 199,211 hip and knee replacement procedures conducted between 2005 and 2017, we compared postoperative mortality among those receiving general, regional or general plus regional anaesthesia. Focusing on unilateral (n=86,467) and partial (n=13,889) hip replacements, we assessed whether some groups within the population are more likely to receive general, regional or general plus regional anaesthesia than others, and whether mortality risk varies depending on anaesthetic choice. We also examined temporal changes in anaesthetic choice over time. Those receiving regional alone or general plus regional for unilateral hip replacement appeared at increased risk of 30-day mortality compared to general anaesthesia alone, even after adjusting for differences in terms of age, ethnicity, deprivation, rurality, comorbidity, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score and admission type (e.g. general plus regional: adjusted hazard ratio (adj. HR)=1.94, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.32 to 2.84). By contrast, we observed lower 30-day mortality among those receiving regional anaesthesia alone compared to general alone for partial hip replacement (adj. HR=0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97). The latter observation contrasts with declining temporal trends in the use of regional anaesthesia alone for partial hip replacement procedures. However, we recognise that postoperative mortality is one perioperative factor that drives anaesthetic choice.

Visualization of aggregate perioperative data improves anesthesia case planning: A randomized, cross-over trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

A challenge in reducing unwanted care variation is effectively managing the wide variety of performed surgical procedures. While an organization may perform thousands of types of cases, privacy and logistical constraints prevent review of previous cases to learn about prior practices. To bridge this gap, we developed a system for extracting key data from anesthesia records. Our objective was to determine whether usage of the system would improve case planning performance for anesthesia residents.

DESIGN

Randomized, cross-over trial.

SETTING

Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

MEASUREMENTS

We developed a web-based, data visualization tool for reviewing de-identified anesthesia records. First year anesthesia residents were recruited and performed simulated case planning tasks (e.g., selecting an anesthetic type) across six case scenarios using a randomized, cross-over design after a baseline assessment. An algorithm scored case planning performance based on care components selected by residents occurring frequently among prior anesthetics, which was scored on a 0-4 point scale. Linear mixed effects regression quantified the tool effect on the average performance score, adjusting for potential confounders.

MAIN RESULTS

We analyzed 516 survey questionnaires from 19 residents. The mean performance score was 2.55 ± SD 0.32. Utilization of the tool was associated with an average score improvement of 0.120 points (95% CI 0.060 to 0.179; p < 0.001). Additionally, a 0.055 point improvement due to the "learning effect" was observed from each assessment to the next (95% CI 0.034 to 0.077; p < 0.001). Assessment score was also significantly associated with specific case scenarios (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the feasibility of developing of a clinical data visualization system that aggregated key anesthetic information and found that the usage of tools modestly improved residents' performance in simulated case planning.

Prophylactic Closed Suction Drainage Is Irrelevant to Accelerated Rehabilitation after Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Closed Distal Femur Fractures

Objective

To investigate whether closed suction drainage (CSD) is related to accelerated rehabilitation of patients after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for closed distal femur fractures.

Methods

This study was a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. Between October 2018 and June 2020, 160 closed distal femur fracture patients who were prepared for ORIF were prospectively randomized into two groups: a CSD group with the mean age of 57.91 ± 14.38 years (32 [40%] men and 48 [60%] women) and a non‐CSD group with the mean age of 59.73 ± 17.55 years (27 [34%] men and 54 [66%] women). Wound visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, peri‐wound skin temperature, hematocrit (Hct), hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations, hidden blood loss (HBL), dressing change, period of wound oozing, postoperative blood transfusion, and length of postoperative hospital stay were recorded. Postoperative wound complications, namely wound infections, wound haematoma, wound dehiscence, erythema of wound, and lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were collected. All the patients were administrated by a single surgical team and followed up for 1 month after the ORIF.

Results

The patients without CSD were identified with lower peri‐wound skin temperature and wound VAS pain scores during the first three postoperative days (36.69 ± 0.33 vs 36.86 ± 0.38 °C, P = 0.002; 1.88 ± 0.82 vs 3.15 ± 1.15, P = 0.000). However, both the peri‐wound skin temperature and wound VAS pain scores did not differ significantly between the two groups on the fifth postoperative day. In addition, patients with CSD had a longer length of postoperative hospitalization time (11.45 ± 5.95 vs 9.78 ± 4.64 days, P = 0.049). There was no statistically significant difference between CSD and non‐CSD groups within 1 month after the ORIF regarding blood loss, period of wound oozing, and postoperative complications, such as incidence of wound infection, haematoma, erythema, dehiscence, and lower limb DVT.

Conclusion

Prophylactic CSD after primary ORIF for closed distal femur fractures not only had no significant advantage to minimize blood loss and wound complications, but increased local inflammation and postoperative hospital stay, and thus we suggest that prophylactic CSD after primary ORIF for closed distal femur fractures is not recommended for optimized clinical pathways and accelerated recovery.

Comprehensive Hip Fracture Care Program: Successive Implementation in 3 Hospitals

Introduction:

Hip fractures are common and costly in the elderly population, often contributing to loss of function and independence. Prompt, coordinated surgical care may improve clinical and economic outcomes for this population.

Materials and Methods:

We created an interdisciplinary care program focused on minimizing time spent immobilized awaiting surgery and streamlining the care pathway for hip fracture. Patients older than 65 years with any hip fracture type including hip fracture repair Diagnosis-Related Group codes (MS-DRG 480, 481, or 482) and MS-DRG 469 and 470 with a hip fracture diagnosis were included in the study. The Hip Fracture Care program (HFCP) was implemented on a staggered basis in 3 hospitals in the HonorHealth system. Time to surgery, length of stay, and discharge location (home/skilled nursing facility) were compared pre- and post-intervention, utilizing an interrupted time series analysis to account for background trends.

Results:

More than 2000 patients across the 3 facilities received HFCP care; demographics were similar for the 826 patients serving as the pre-implementation comparison group. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) length of stay decreased from 5.6 (4.0) to 4.7 (2.9) days (mean difference 0.9 days; P < .05). Mean (SD) time from admission to the operating room decreased from 30.8 (21.1) to 25.6 (20.5) hours (mean difference 5.2 hours; P < .05). There was no change in the proportion of patients discharged to home versus skilled nursing facility.

Discussion:

Optimal care of this vulnerable population can significantly reduce the time to surgery and length of stay.

Conclusions:

Length of stay was reduced by nearly 1 day with implementation of a multifactorial program for hip fracture care.