Internal fixation remains the treatment of choice for non-displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients, whereas, arthroplasty is preferred for displaced fracture patterns. Given technological advancements in implant design and excellent long-term outcomes, arthroplasty may provide improved outcomes for the treatment of non-displaced femoral neck fractures. The aim of our study was to conduct a systematic review of the orthopaedic literature (1) to investigate the outcomes of internal fixation for the treatment of non-displaced and minimally displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients and (2) to compare the outcomes of patients treated with internal fixation to arthroplasty in this patient population.

Relevant articles were identified using PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Manuscripts were included only if they contained (1) patients 60 years or older with (2) nondisplaced or minimally displaced (Garden I or II) femoral neck fractures (3) treated with internal fixation or arthroplasty or (4) separately reported outcomes in this patient population. The primary outcome was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included mortality, patient reported outcomes, length of hospital stay, infection, and transfusions. An a priori decision was made to classify studies into comparative or non-comparative groups. Comparative studies directly compared arthroplasty to internal fixation in the specific study population while the non-comparative studies included separate cohorts of patients treated with arthroplasty or internal fixation. A fixed-effects model was used to quantitatively pool study outcomes.

Twenty-five non-comparative studies were identified with a total of 22,020 patients, all of which were treated with internal fixation. The pooled incidence of reoperation after internal fixation was 14.4% (95% CI: 10.8 – 18.8). The incidence of mortality within one-year of injury was 14.4% (95% CI: 6.7 – 28.3), based on the reporting in 14 studies.

Three comparative studies were identified with a total of 360 patients (128 treated with arthroplasty and 232 treated with internal fixation). All three studies reported reoperation rates. The overall risk of reoperation was 3.1% in the arthroplasty group compared to 9.5% in the internal fixation group (relative risk: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.10 – 0.84, p= 0.02). Only two studies reported mortality. The relative risk of mortality in patients treated with arthroplasty compared to internal fixation was 2.54 (95% CI: 1.38 – 4.70, p= 0.003).

Internal fixation of minimally displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly is associated with a risk of reoperation and mortality that exceeds 14%. Treatment with arthroplasty may reduce the risk of reoperation by 70%. However, this benefit maybe tempered by a potential increased risk of mortality associated with arthroplasty in this patient population.

In the polytrauma patient, intraoperative patient positioning is one factor thought to influence pulmonary complications associated with intramedullary (IM) nailing of the femur. With regards to lateral femoral nailing, it is currently unknown as to whether the position of the injured lung contributes to changes in pulmonary function. It has been proposed that, similar to prone positioning in the ICU for acute respiratory distress syndrome management, having the injured lung in a dependent position during lateral femoral nailing would prevent barotrauma from hyperinflation and promote gas exchange in the non-dependent healthy lung. This study aims to assess the association between the position of the injured lung during lateral femoral nailing and pulmonary complications as determined by ICU LOS.

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single level 1 trauma centre. All patients treated with IM nailing for femur fracture between 2006 and 2014 were screened for inclusion. Only patients who 1) underwent lateral femoral nailing and 2) had a significant chest injury, defined by chest Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) of three or greater, were included. Patients with bilateral femur fractures or symmetric bilateral thoracic injuries were excluded. Intraoperative position of the lung injury was described depending on whether the injured lung was down, or in the dependent position, during lateral femoral nailing, versus the healthy lung down. The primary outcome was ICU LOS in all study patients. Secondary analysis was performed on the subgroup of patients who were admitted to ICU prior to femoral nailing. Data analysis assessing for differences in ICU LOS between groups was performed through Wilcoxan testing.

One hundred and thirteen femur fractures were included in the study. During lateral femoral nailing, 53 patients had the injured lung down and 60 patients had the healthy lung down. No differences between age, ICU admission rate, injury severity score, chest AIS or head AIS were detected between the groups. There were no detectable differences in the rate of ICU admission between patients with the injured lung down (47.2%) and patients with the healthy lung down (46.7%) (P=0.96).

We were unable to detect a difference in average ICU LOS between patients who had the injured lung down (4.9 days, 95% CI 2.8 – 7) compared to patients with the healthy lung down (6 days, 95% CI 3.7 – 8.4) during lateral femoral nailing (P=0.73). When looking only at patients who were admitted to ICU prior to femoral nailing, the LOS was 10.3 days (95% CI 7 – 13.7) in injured lung down patients compared to 12.9 days (9.2 – 16.6) in healthy lung down patients (P= 0.25).

In patients with chest AIS greater than three, the position of the injured lung during lateral femoral IM nailing does not appear to affect ICU LOS.

The effect of early surgery on hip fracture outcomes has received considerable study and although it has been suggested that early surgical treatment of these fractures leads to better patient outcomes, the findings are inconclusive. The American College of Surgeon's (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) prospectively collects blinded, risk-adjusted patient-level data on surgical patients in over 600 participating hospitals worldwide. The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of ACS-NSQIP hospital patients that are currently being treated within the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) time to hip fracture surgery benchmark. The secondary objectives were to identify risk factors for missing the benchmark, and determine if the benchmark is associated with improved 30-day patient outcomes.

Patients that underwent hip fracture surgery between 2005–2013 and entered in the ACS-NSQIP database were included in the study. Counts and proportions were used to determine how frequently the NICE benchmark was met. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors of missing the NICE benchmark and determine if missing the benchmark was associated with 30-day mortality/complications rates.

26,006 patients met the study enrolment criteria. 71.4% of patients were treated within the NICE benchmark and 89.4% were treated by post-admission day two. Gender, dyspnea, infectious illness, bleeding disorders, preoperative hematocrit, preoperative platelet count, arthroplasty procedure type, race other than White, and hip fracture diagnosis were all statistically significant predictors of missing the benchmark (p<0.01). Meeting the NICE benchmark was not associated with reductions in major complications (OR=0.93, CI=0.83–1.05, p=0.23), nor a clinically significant difference in postoperative length of stay (LOS) (parameter estimate=0.77, p<0.01); however, it was associated with a decreased 30-day mortality (OR=0.88, CI=0.78–0.99, p=0.03) and the likelihood of minor complications (OR=0.92, CI=0.84–0.995, p=0.04).

ACS-NSQIP hospitals are currently compatible with the NICE benchmark. However, data from the ACS-NSQIP database suggests that surgical treatment within the NICE benchmark may be unnecessarily narrow. Extending the benchmark to post-operative day two did not significantly increase the risk of 30-day mortality and minor complications; nor did it extend the average LOS. Neither the NICE benchmark, nor the extended two-day standard, was associated with reductions in major complications. The findings highlight the importance of further prospective investigation to monitor the effect of time to surgery benchmarks.

There is ongoing debate regarding the optimal surgical treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) compared to hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the management of these fractures.

A cost–utility analysis using decision tree and Markov modelling based on data from the published literature was conducted. A single-payer perspective with a lifetime time horizon was adopted. A willingness to pay threshold of CAD $50,000 was used. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the study's primary outcome measure.

In comparison to HA, the incremental cost per QALY gained for RTSA was $13,679. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed the model to be sensitive to the RTSA implant cost and the RTSA procedural costs. Two-way sensitivity analysis suggested RTSA could also be cost-effective within the first two years of surgery with an early complication rate as high as 25% (if RTSA implant cost was approximately $3,000); or conversely, RTSA implant cost could be as high as $8,500 if its early complication rates were 5%. The ICER of $13,679 is well below the WTP threshold of $50,000 and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 92.6% of model simulations favoured RTSA.

Our economic analysis found that RTSA for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures in the elderly is the preferred economic strategy when compared to HA. The ICER of RTSA is well-below standard willingness to pay thresholds, and its estimate of cost-effectiveness is similar to other highly successful orthopaedic strategies such as total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of hip arthritis.