The incidence of hip fractures in the elderly is increasing. Minimally displaced and un-displaced hip fractures can be treated with either internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty. The aim was identifying the revision rate of internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty in patients 60 years or older with Garden I or II hip fractures and to identify risk factors associated with each method.

A retrospective analysis was conducted from 2 Major Trauma Centres and 9 Trauma Units between 01/01/2015 and 31/12/2020. Patients managed conservatively, treated with a total hip replacement and missing data were excluded from the study.

1273 patients were included of which 26.2% (n=334) had cannulated hip fixation (CHF), 19.4% (n=247) had a dynamic hip screw (DHS) and 54.7% (n=692) had a hemiarthroplasty. 66 patients in total (5.2%) required revision surgery. The revision rates for CHF, DHS and hemiarthroplasty were 14.4%, 4%, 1.2% (p<0.001) respectively. Failed fixation was the most common reason for revision with the incidence increasing by 7-fold in the CHF group [45.8% (n=23) vs. 33.3% (n=3) in DHS; p<0.01]. The risk factors identified for CHF revision were age >80 (p<0.05), female gender (p<0.05) and smoking (p<0.05). The average length of hospital stay was decreased when using CHF compared to DHS and hemiarthroplasty (12.6 days vs 14.9 days vs 18.1 days respectively, p<0.001) and the 1 year mortality rate for CHF, DHS and hemiarthroplasty was 2.5%, 2% and 9% respectively.

Fixation methods for Garden I and II hip fractures in elderly patients are associated with a higher revision rate than hemiarthroplasty. CHF has the highest revision rate at 14.4% followed by DHS and hemiarthroplasty. Female patients, patients over the age of 80 and patients with poor bone quality are considered high risk for fixation failure with CHF. When considering a fixation method in such patients, DHS is more robust than a screw construct, followed by hemiarthroplasty.

The “Golden Patient” is suitability worked up to be the first theatre case of the day; the aim being to improve theatre efficiency. A previous audit of theatre activity demonstrated that the average knife to skin time being achieved across 3 daily trauma lists was 10.12. Over 2-months we introduced a Golden Patient Pathway and completed the audit cycle. The pathway involved a checklist to ensure the completion of essential clinical tasks for each designated golden patient. Activities from 74 trauma theatre cases were reviewed. 47 golden patients remained first whilst 27 were deferred for reasons including non-suitability for golden patient status and emergent cases given clinical priority. The average theatre call time was 24 minutes earlier and the average knife-to-skin time was 15 minutes earlier than non-golden patients during the re-audit. However, when compared to the initial audit the knife-to-skin time had only improved by 3 minutes. Reasons effecting theatre efficiency are multifactorial and other organisational changes had occurred between the audits. This study demonstrates that while the Golden Patient Pathway can improve theatre start times it is not the whole solution. Communication, anaesthetic job plans, portering arrangements, equipment storage and theatre staffing also need to be reviewed.

Introduction:

Early stabilization has the potential to expedite early return to function and reduce hospital stay thus reducing cost to health care. A clinical audit was performed to test the hypothesis that early surgical stabilization lowers the rate of soft tissue complications and is not influenced by choice of distal fibular implants used for stabilization of ankle fractures.

In this review, we present the data of one of the largest non-designer, mid- to long-term follow ups of the AGC.

We present a total of 1538 AGC knees during a 15 year period, of which 902 were followed up by postal or telephone questionnaire focused on Oxford Knee Scores, Visual analogues of function and pain and survival analyses performed. Mean length of follow up was 10.4 years.

85.7% of patients had an Oxford knee score of between 0 and 40, with 71.2% scoring between 0–30.

65.6% of patients responded with a Visual Analogue Score (VAS) of 0 or 1 at rest (minimum pain 0) and 53.9% reporting VA scores of 0 or 1 while walking.

87.5% of patients reported Excellent or good functional reports at final follow up and 90.3% reporting excellent or good pain control compared to per-operative levels.

Survival analysis confirms excellent survivorship.

This large cohort and multi-surgeon trial reproduces the excellent results as demonstrated by the designer centre (Ritter et al.). Mid to long term outcome sows excellent function and analgesia. Complication rates are low and the necessity for revision remains low.

Purpose of Study

In this review, we present the data of one of the largest non-designer, mid- to long-term follow-ups of the AGC carried out by surgeons of differing grades and sub-specialty.

Every country has its own criteria for consent. In most, a written consent form is used to reflect patient understanding and permision for the procedure to happen.

While oral consent has as much legal sway as the written consent form, the presence of a signature acts as proof of discussion. All European hospitals should have a 100% compliance with patient’s signing consent forms, but their completion is often incomplete and inaccurate, have errors of omission and have lead to litigation, poor patient understanding and recall.

We (along witht the BOA) introduce an computer programme of procedure specific orthopaedic consent forms. They have been created for most common elective and trauma operations. The forms follow the UK Department of Health guidelines on consent and contain a brief explanation of the procedure, offer alternative therapies/consequences of not having the procedure (where appropriate), the serious risks and commonly occurring complications. They are written in layman’s English (aimed at a reading age of 14 years). Preliminary trials have also shown the time taken to print and complete a pre-designed form is much less than that of the current handwritten form, reducing errors of omission whilst still allowing discussion with the patient.

The forms are currently available as word documents from an easily navigable website. With a view towards European usage, the forms can be easily translated to other languages at minimal cost.

With support from the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), the BOA medico-legal committee, the specialist societies and consultant users (via the website) we hope that the project will continue to evolve with a greater selection of procedural consent forms becoming available.

It is believed, from the evidence available, that this approach should decrease the incidence of patient misunderstanding, and the potential risk of successful litigation, while encouraging better communication between patients and surgeons.