Search

Aims: To investigate if preoperative CT improves detection of unstable trochanteric hip fractures. Methods: A single-centre prospective study was conducted. Patients aged 65 years or older with trochanteric hip fractures admitted to Stavanger University Hospital (Stavanger, Norway) were consecutively included from September 2020 to January 2022. Radiographs and CT images of the fractures were obtained, and surgeons made individual assessments of the fractures based on these. The assessment was conducted according to a systematic protocol including three classification systems (AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), Evans Jensen (EVJ), and Nakano) and questions addressing specific fracture patterns. An expert group provided a gold-standard assessment based on the CT images. Sensitivities and specificities of surgeons’ assessments were estimated and compared in regression models with correlations for the same patients. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were presented as Cohen’s kappa and Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1). Results: We included 120 fractures in 119 patients. Compared to radiographs, CT increased the sensitivity of detecting unstable trochanteric fractures from 63% to 70% (p = 0.028) and from 70% to 76% (p = 0.004) using AO/OTA and EVJ, respectively. Compared to radiographs alone, CT increased the sensitivity of detecting a large posterolateral trochanter major fragment or a comminuted trochanter major fragment from 63% to 76% (p = 0.002) and from 38% to 55% (p < 0.001), respectively. CT improved intra-rater reliability for stability assessment using EVJ (AC1 0.68 to 0.78; p = 0.049) and for detecting a large posterolateral trochanter major fragment (AC1 0.42 to 0.57; p = 0.031). Conclusion: A preoperative CT of trochanteric fractures increased detection of unstable fractures using the AO/OTA and EVJ classification systems. Compared to radiographs, CT improved intra-rater reliability when assessing fracture stability and detecting large posterolateral trochanter major fragments. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):524–531.

Aims: This study aimed to describe preoperative waiting times for surgery in hip fracture patients in Norway, and analyze factors affecting waiting time and potential negative consequences of prolonged waiting time. Methods: Overall, 37,708 hip fractures in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from January 2014 to December 2018 were linked with data in the Norwegian Patient Registry. Hospitals treating hip fractures were characterized according to their hip fracture care. Waiting time (hours from admission to start of surgery), surgery within regular working hours, and surgery on the day of or on the day after admission, i.e. ‘expedited surgery’ were estimated. Results: Mean waiting time was 22.6 hours (SD 20.7); 36,652 patients (97.2%) waited less than three days (< 72 hours), and 27,527 of the patients (73%) were operated within regular working hours (08:00 to 16:00). Expedited surgery was given to 31,675 of patients (84%), and of these, 19,985 (53%) were treated during regular working hours. Patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classes 4 and 5 were more likely to have surgery within regular working hours (odds ratio (OR) 1.59; p < 0.001), and less likely to receive expedited surgery than ASA 1 patients (OR 0.29; p < 0.001). Low-volume hospitals treated a larger proportion of patients during regular working hours than high volume hospitals (OR 1.26; p < 0.001). High-volume hospitals had less expedited surgery and significantly longer waiting times than low and intermediate-low volume hospitals. Higher ASA classes and Charlson Comorbidity Index increased waiting time. Patients not receiving expedited surgery had higher 30-day and one-year mortality rates (OR 1.19; p < 0.001) and OR 1.13; p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion: There is inequality in waiting time for hip fracture treatment in Norway. Variations in waiting time from admission to hip fracture surgery depended on both patient and hospital factors. Not receiving expedited surgery was associated with increased 30-day and one-year mortality rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):710–720.

Aims: Hip fracture patients have high morbidity and mortality. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess the quality of care of patients with hip fracture, including those with chronic cognitive impairment (CCI). Our aim was to compare PROMs from hip fracture patients with and without CCI, using the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR). Methods: PROM questionnaires at four months (n = 34,675) and 12 months (n = 24,510) after a hip fracture reported from 2005 to 2018 were analyzed. Pre-injury score was reported in the four-month questionnaire. The questionnaires included the EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire, and information about who completed the questionnaire. Results: Of the 34,675 included patients, 5,643 (16%) had CCI. Patients with CCI were older (85 years vs 81 years) (p < 0.001), and had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification compared to patients without CCI. CCI was unrelated to fracture type and treatment method. EQ-5D index scores were lower in patients with CCI after four months (0.37 vs 0.60; p < 0.001) and 12 months (0.39 vs 0.64; p < 0.001). Patients with CCI had lower scores for all dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L pre-fracture and at four and 12 months. Conclusion: Patients with CCI reported lower health-related quality of life pre-fracture, at four and 12 months after the hip fracture. PROM data from hip fracture patients with CCI are valuable in the assessment of treatment. Patients with CCI should be included in future studies.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe variation in hip fracture treatment in Norway expressed as adherence to international and national evidence-based treatment guidelines, to study factors influencing deviation from guidelines, and to analyze consequences of non-adherence. Methods: International and national guidelines were identified and treatment recommendations extracted. All 43 hospitals routinely treating hip fractures in Norway were characterized. From the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR), hip fracture patients aged > 65 years and operated in the period January 2014 to December 2018 for fractures with conclusive treatment guidelines were included (n = 29,613: femoral neck fractures (n = 21,325), stable trochanteric fractures (n = 5,546), inter- and subtrochanteric fractures (n = 2,742)). Adherence to treatment recommendations and a composite indicator of best practice were analyzed. Patient survival and reoperations were evaluated for each recommendation. Results: Median age of the patients was 84 (IQR 77 to 89) years and 69% (20,427/29,613) were women. Overall, 79% (23,390/29,613) were treated within 48 hours, and 80% (23,635/29,613) by a surgeon with more than three years’ experience. Adherence to guidelines varied substantially but was markedly better in 2018 than in 2014. Having a dedicated hip fracture unit (OR 1.06, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.11) and a hospital hip fracture programme (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27) increased the probability of treatment according to best practice. Surgery after 48 hours increased one-year mortality significantly (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22; p = 0.001). Alternative treatment to arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs) increased mortality after 30 days (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.62)) and one year (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.72), and also increased the number of reoperations (OR 4.61, 95% CI 3.73 to 5.71). An uncemented stem increased the risk of reoperation significantly (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48; p = 0.030). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates a substantial variation between hospitals in adherence to evidence-based guidelines for treatment of hip fractures in Norway. Non-adherence can be ascribed to in-hospital factors. Poor adherence has significant negative consequences for patients in the form of increased mortality rates at 30 and 365 days post-treatment and in reoperation rates.