The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) is a clinically led web based audit used to inform national policy guidelines. The aim of this audit was to establish the accuracy of completion of NHFD v13.0 theatre collection sheets, identify common pitfalls and areas of good practice, whilst raising awareness of the importance of accuracy of this data and the manner in which it reflects performance of CAH Trauma & Orthopaedic unit in relation to national guidelines. Our aim was to improve completion up to >80% by the operating surgeon and improve overall accuracy.

The methodology within both cycles of the audit were identical. It involved reviewing the NHFD V13.0 completed by the operating surgeon and cross-checking their accuracy against clinical notes, operation notes, imaging, anaesthetic charts and A&E admission assessment.

Following completion of cycle 1 these results were presented, and education surrounding V13.0 was provided, at the monthly trust audit meeting. At this point we introduced a sticker onto the pre-operative checklist for Hip fractures. This included time of admission and reason for delay. We then completed a re-audit.

Cycle-1 included 25 operations, 56% (n=14) had a completed V13.0 form. Of these 21% (n=3) were deemed to be 100% accurate. Cycle-2 included 31 operations (between April – June 21) 81% (n=25) had a completed intra-operative from and showed an increase in accuracy to 56% (n=14)

Through raising awareness, education and our interventions we have seen a significant improvement in the completion and accuracy of v13.0. Although 100% accuracy was not achieved its clear that education and intervention will improve compliance over time.

Through the interventions that we have implemented we have shown that it is possible to improve completion and accuracy of the NHFD V13.0 theatre collection sheet locally and feel this could be implemented nationally.

Vancouver B fractures around a cemented polished tapered stem (CTPS) are often treated with revision arthroplasty. Results of osteosynthesis in these fractures are poor as per current literature. However, the available literature does not distinguish between fractures around CTPS from those around other stems.

The aim of our study was to assess the clinical and radiological outcome of open reduction and internal fixation in Vancouver B fractures around CTPS using a broad non-locking plate.

Patients treated with osteosynthesis between January 1997 and July 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. All underwent direct reduction and stabilisation using cerclage wires before definitive fixation with a broad DCP. Bicortical screw fixation was obtained in the proximal and distal fragments. We defined failure of treatment as revision for any cause.

101 patients (42 men and 59 women, mean age 79) were included. 70 had minimum follow-up of 6 months. 63 of these went on to clinical and radiological union. Three developed infected non-union. 7 had failure of fixation. Lack of anatomical reduction was the commonest predictor of failure followed by inadequate proximal fragment fixation and infection. 14 patients dropped at least 1 mobility grade from their preoperative status.

This is the largest series of a very specific group of periprosthetic fractures treated with osteosynthesis. Patients who develop these fractures are often frail and “high risk” for major revision surgery. We recommend osteosynthesis for patients with Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures around CTPS provided these fractures can be anatomically reduced and adequately fixed.

Introduction

Many prosthetic design changes have been introduced in attempt to improve outcomes following TKA; however there is no consensus as to whether these changes confer benefits to patients. This study aimed to assess whether patients treated with a modern implant design had an enhanced patient outcome compared to a traditional model in a double blind randomised controlled trial.

Purpose: Reducing wait times for total hip (THA) or knee (TKA) joint arthroplasty is a Canadian health care priority. Models that maximise the capacity of advanced practice clinicians (nurses, physical therapists, sports medicine specialists) have been established to streamline care. Hospitals across the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Local Health Integration Network in Ontario collaborated to establish a Regional Joint Assessment Centre (RJAC). This study was designed to profile patients deemed suitable for surgical review, and to examine wait times for THA or TKA in RJAC patients compared to those referred directly to an orthopaedic surgeon’s office.

Method: Patients referred to the RJAC between July 2007 and August 2008 with knee or hip OA were included. Self-reported function was evaluated using the Oxford Hip and Knee Score that is scored out of 60 (higher scores reflect greater disability). Time to surgery was measured as the number of days from initial review to surgery. Group one consisted of patients that were referred to the RJAC while group two was comprised of patients who were referred directly to a surgeon’s office. Patient characteristics were examined using univariate analyses. Independent t-tests were used to examine between group differences.

Results: One hundred thirty-six patients (mean±sd: 68±2 years, body mass index 31±6 kg/m2, 83 females) with 150 hip and/or knee joint problems were reviewed in the RJAC. Of those, only 33% (45/136 patients) were deemed suitable for surgical review. Self-reported function (Oxford Scores) in the group requiring surgical review was significantly worse (40±7, p=0.03) than in those patients deemed unsuitable for surgical review (37±9). The RJAC group waited on average 130 days for THA and 129 days for TKA (below the provincial target of 182 days) while those referred directly to the surgeons’ offices waited significantly longer (194 days for THA and 206 days for TKA, p< 0.001).

Conclusion: Patients with hip and knee OA who require surgical review have worse self-reported function than those triaged to conservative care. Wait times for THA or TKA were significantly shorter for patients referred to the RJAC under the new model of care than for those referred directly to an orthopaedic surgeon’s office.