Search

Purpose: The aim was to compare the probability of discharge after hip fracture surgery conditional on being alive and in hospital between patients mobilised within and beyond 36-hours of surgery across groups defined by depression. Methods: Data were taken from the National Hip Fracture Database and included patients 60 years of age or older who underwent hip fracture surgery in England and Wales between 2014 and 2016. The conditional probability of postsurgical live discharge was estimated for patients mobilised early and for patients mobilised late across groups with and without depression. The association between mobilisation timing and the conditional probability of live discharge were also estimated separately through adjusted generalized linear models. Results: Data were analysed for 116,274 patients. A diagnosis of depression was present in 8.31% patients. In those with depression, 7,412 (76.7%) patients mobilised early. In those without depression, 84,085 (78.9%) patients mobilised early. By day 30 after surgery, the adjusted odds ratio of discharge among those who mobilised early compared to late was 1.79 (95% CI: 1.56–2.05, p<0.001) and 1.92 (95% CI: 1.84–2.00, p<0.001) for those with and without depression, respectively. Conclusion: A similar proportion of patients with depression mobilised early after hip fracture surgery when compared to those without a diagnosis of depression. The association between mobilisation timing and time to live discharge was observed for patients with and without depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To develop and validate the stratify-hip algorithm (multivariable prediction models to predict those at low, medium, and high risk across in-hospital death, 30-day death, and residence change after hip fracture). Methods Multivariable Fine-Gray and logistic regression of audit data linked to hospital records for older adults surgically treated for hip fracture in England/Wales 2011–14 (development n  = 170 411) and 2015–16 (external validation, n  = 90 102). Outcomes included time to in-hospital death, death at 30 days, and time to residence change. Predictors included age, sex, pre-fracture mobility, dementia, and pre-fracture residence (not for residence change). Model assumptions, performance, and sensitivity to missingness were assessed. Models were incorporated into the stratify-hip algorithm assigning patients to overall low (low risk across outcomes), medium (low death risk, medium/high risk of residence change), or high (high risk of in-hospital death, high/medium risk of 30-day death) risk. Results For complete-case analysis, 6 780 of 141 158 patients (4.8%) died in-hospital, 8 693 of 149 258 patients (5.8%) died by 30 days, and 4 461 of 119 420 patients (3.7%) had residence change. Models demonstrated acceptable calibration (observed:expected ratio 0.90, 0.99, and 0.94), and discrimination (area under curve 73.1, 71.1, and 71.5; Brier score 5.7, 5.3, and 5.6) for in-hospital death, 30-day death, and residence change, respectively. Overall, 31%, 28%, and 41% of patients were assigned to overall low, medium, and high risk. External validation and missing data analyses elicited similar findings. The algorithm is available at https://stratifyhip.co.uk. Conclusions The current study developed and validated the stratify-hip algorithm as a new tool to risk stratify patients after hip fracture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nearly 100,000 people underwent total hip replacement (THR) in the United Kingdom in 2018, and most can expect it to last at least 25 years. However, some THRs fail and require revision surgery, which results in worse outcomes for the patient and is costly to the health service. Variation in the survival of THR implants has been observed between units and reducing this unwarranted variation is one focus of the "Getting it Right First Time" (GIRFT) program in the UK. We aimed to investigate whether the statistically improved implant survival of THRs in a high-performing unit is associated with the implants used or other factors at that unit, such as surgical skill.Methods and Findings: We analyzed a national, mandatory, prospective, cohort study (National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man [NJR]) of all THRs performed in England and Wales. We included the 664,761 patients with records in the NJR who have received a stemmed primary THR between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2017 in one of 461 hospitals, with osteoarthritis as the only indication. The exposure was the unit (hospital) in which the THR was implanted. We compared survival of THRs implanted in the "exemplar" unit with THRs implanted anywhere else in the registry. The outcome was revision surgery of any part of the THR construct for any reason. Net failure was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and adjusted analyses employed flexible parametric survival analysis. The mean age of patients contributing to our analyses was 69.9 years (SD 10.1), and 61.1% were female. Crude analyses including all THRs demonstrated better implant survival at the exemplar unit with an all-cause construct failure of 1.7% (95% CI 1.3-2.3) compared with 2.9% (95% CI 2.8-3.0) in the rest of the country after 13.9 years (log-rank test P < 0.001). The same was seen in analyses adjusted for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (difference in restricted mean survival time 0.12 years [95% CI 0.07-0.16; P < 0.001]). Adjusted analyses restricted to the same implants as the exemplar unit show no demonstrable difference in restricted mean survival time between groups after 13.9 years (P = 0.34). A limitation is that this study is observational and conclusions regarding causality cannot be inferred. Our outcome is revision surgery, and although important, we recognize it is not the only marker of success of a THR.Conclusions: Our results suggest that the "better than expected" implant survival results of this exemplar center are associated with implant choice. The survival results may be replicated by adopting key treatment decisions, such as implant selection. These decisions are easier to replicate than technical skills or system factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Metal-on-metal hip replacement (MoMHR) revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) has been associated with an increased risk of early complications and reoperation and inferior patient-reported outcome scores compared with non-ARMD revisions. As a result, early revision specifically for ARMD with adoption of a lower surgical threshold has been widely recommended with the goal of improving the subsequent prognosis after ARMD revisions. However, no large cohorts have compared the risk of complications and reoperation after MoMHR revision surgery for ARMD (an unanticipated revision indication) with those after non-ARMD revisions (which represent conventional modes of arthroplasty revision).Questions/purposes: (1) Does the risk of intraoperative complications differ between MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (2) Do mortality rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (3) Do rerevision rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (4) How do implant survival rates differ after MoMHR revision when performed for specific non-ARMD indications compared with ARMD?Methods: This retrospective observational study involved all patients undergoing MoMHR from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales subsequently revised for any indication between 2008 and 2014. The NJR achieves high levels of patient consent (93%) and linked procedures (ability to link serial procedures performed on the same patient and hip; 95%). Furthermore, recent validation studies have demonstrated that when revision procedures have been captured within the NJR, the data completion and accuracy were excellent. Revisions for ARMD and non-ARMD indications were matched one to one for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. The propensity score summarizes the many patient and surgical factors that were used in the matching process (including sex, age, type of primary arthroplasty, time to revision surgery, and details about the revision procedure performed such as the approach, specific components revised, femoral head size, bearing surface, and use of bone graft) using one single score for each revised hip. The patient and surgical factors within the ARMD and non-ARMD groups subsequently became much more balanced once the groups had been matched based on the propensity scores. The matched cohort included 2576 MoMHR revisions with each study group including 1288 revisions (mean followup of 3 years for both groups; range, 1-7 years). Intraoperative complications, mortality, and rerevision surgery were compared between matched groups using univariable regression analyses. Implant survival rates in the non-ARMD group were calculated for each specific revision indication with each individual non-ARMD indication subsequently compared with the implant survival rate in the ARMD group using Cox regression analyses.Results: There was no difference between the ARMD and non-ARMD MoMHR revisions in terms of intraoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.59; p = 0.900). Mortality rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; CI, 0.21-0.87; p = 0.019); however, there was no difference when revisions performed for infection were excluded from the non-ARMD indication group (HR, 0.69; CI, 0.35-1.37; p = 0.287). Rerevision rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (HR, 0.52; CI, 0.36-0.75; p < 0.001); this difference persisted even after removing revisions performed for infection (HR, 0.59; CI, 0.40-0.89; p = 0.011). Revisions for infection (5-year survivorship = 81%; CI, 55%-93%; p = 0.003) and dislocation/subluxation (5-year survivorship = 82%; CI, 69%-90%; p < 0.001) had the lowest implant survival rates when compared with revisions for ARMD (5-year survivorship = 94%; CI, 92%-96%).Conclusions: Contrary to previous observations, MoMHRs revised for ARMD have approximately half the risk of rerevision compared with non-ARMD revisions. We suspect worldwide regulatory authorities have positively influenced rerevision rates after ARMD revision by recommending that surgeons exercise a lower revision threshold and that such revisions are now being performed at an earlier stage. The high risk of rerevision after MoMHR revision for infection and dislocation is concerning. Infected MoMHR revisions were responsible for the increased mortality risk observed after non-ARMD revision, which parallels findings in non-MoMHR revisions for infection.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 88,000 primary hip replacements are performed in England and Wales each year. Around 1% go on to develop deep prosthetic joint infection. Between one-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty best treatment options remain unclear. Our aims were to characterise consultant orthopaedic surgeons' decisions about performing either one-stage or two-stage revision surgery for patients with deep prosthetic infection (PJI) after hip arthroplasty, and to identify whether a randomised trial comparing one-stage with two-stage revision would be feasible.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 consultant surgeons who perform revision surgery for PJI after hip arthroplasty at 5 high-volume National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments in England and Wales. Surgeons were interviewed before the development of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Data were analysed using a thematic approach.Results: There is no single standardised surgical intervention for the treatment of PJI. Surgeons balance multiple factors when choosing a surgical strategy which include multiple patient-related factors, their own knowledge and expertise, available infrastructure and the infecting organism. Surgeons questioned whether it was appropriate that the two-stage revision remained the best treatment, and some surgeons' willingness to consider more one-stage revisions had increased over recent years and were influenced by growing evidence showing equivalence between surgical techniques, and local observations of successful one-stage revisions. Custom-made articulating spacers was a practice that enabled uncertainty to be managed in the absence of definitive evidence about the superiority of one surgical technique over the other. Surgeons highlighted the need for research evidence to inform practice and thought that a randomised trial to compare treatments was needed. Most surgeons thought that patients who they treated would be eligible for trial participation in instances where there was uncertainty about the best treatment option.Conclusions: Surgeons highlighted the need for evidence to support their choice of revision. Some surgeons' willingness to consider one-stage revision for infection had increased over time, largely influenced by evidence of successful one-stage revisions. Custom-made articulating spacers also enabled surgeons to manage uncertainty about the superiority of surgical techniques. Surgeons thought that a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing one-stage with two-stage joint replacement is needed and that randomisation would be feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which assesses the failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in men and women and compared the survival with conventional stemmed total hip replacement (THR). The study analyzed data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) for primary THRs from 2003 to 2011. Results suggest that hip resurfacing has similar implant survival rates to other surgical options in men with large femoral heads but with inferior survivorship in other patients.