This large UK multicentre study evaluates clinical outcomes and identifies factors associated with local complication following PFR for non-oncological conditions.

132 patients across four UK centres underwent PFR from 01/08/2004-28/03/2023 with median follow-up of 1.9 (Q10.5-Q34.2) years. 75 (56.8%) patients were female and the mean age was 74.0 (SD 11.7) years. 103 (78%) patients had Charleston Comorbidity Index ≥3. ASA class was III or IV in 66.6%. Indications were infected revision (39, 29.5%), periprosthetic fracture (36, 27.3%), acute trauma (30, 22.7%), aseptic revision (17, 12.9%), failed trauma (nine, 6.8%) and complex primary arthroplasty (one, 0.8%). The primary outcome was the local complication rate. Secondary outcomes were systemic complications, reoperation and mortality rates. Comparisons were made with t-tests and Chi2 tests to investigate patient and surgical factors associated with local complication. Statistical significance was p<0.05.

There were 37(28.0%) local complications. These were 18 (13.6%) dislocations, eight (6.1%) prosthetic joint infections, four (3.0%) haematomas, three (2.3%) superficial infections, one (0.8%) wound dehiscence, one (0.8%) sciatic nerve palsy and one (0.8%) femoral perforation. Dislocation mostly occurred in conventional articulations (12, 9.1%) followed by dual-mobility cups (three, 2.3%), constrained cups (two, 1.5%) and hemiarthroplasty (one, 0.8%). Median time to local complication was 30 (Q14-Q3 133) days. Seven (5.3%) patients developed a systemic complication. Thirty-three (25.0%) patients underwent reoperation. Thirty-day and one-year mortality rates were 3.8% and 12.1%, respectively. Longer surgical waiting times (7.9 \[SD 16.9) versus 2.6 \[SD 4.4\] days, p<0.001) and longer operating times (212.5 \[SD 71.8\] versus 189.4 \[SD 59.3\] mins, p=0.0450) were associated with local complication.

Due to its high complication rate, PFR should be a salvage option when performed for non-oncological indications. Conventional articulations should be avoided. PFR should be delivered in a timely manner and ideally as dual-consultant cases to reduce operating time.

Mortality following revision hip surgery for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) has been reported to be as high as 60% at 5 years. The aim of this study was to determine the mortality rate for PPF revisions, compared to revision for aseptic loosening or infection at our tertiary referral centre.

Revision arthroplasty procedures performed for PPF, aseptic loosening or infection between January 2014 and December 2015 at our institution were identified using a prospectively collected PPF referral database and locally collected NJR data. Comparisons were made between the 3 groups for baseline demographics, admission to higher-level care, length of stay, complications, and Kaplan-Meier failure (mortality) at 1 & 5 years post-operative (with log-rank test for equality).

There were 37 PPF, 71 infected and 221 aseptic revisions. PPF had a higher proportion of females (65% vs. 39% in infection and 53% in aseptic; p = 0.031) and grade 3 and 4 ASA patients (p = 0.006). Median time to surgery from injury for PPF was 8 days (95% CI, 6–16). Single-stage procedures were performed in 84% of PPF, 42% of infection and 99% of aseptic revisions (p < 0.001). 19% of PPF revisions required HDU admission, 1% in the aseptic group and none in the infection group (p<0.001). Median length of stay was significantly different (PPF 10; infection 14; aseptic 8 days (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of 1-year mortality were: PPF = 0%; infection = 2.8% (0.7–11.1%); aseptic = 0.9% (0.2–3.5%). 5-year mortality estimates were: PPF = 17.1% (8–34%), infection = 8.7% (4–18.3%), aseptic = 12% (8.4–17%). Log-rank test of equality was not significant, p=0.833.

Despite the PPF group having an average delay to surgery of 8 days, higher ASA grades and more admissions to HDU there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the groups at 1 and 5 years postoperatively. Using a coherent MDT approach with dedicated healthcare professionals this service demonstrates a low post operative mortality rate which merits further investment and development.

Aims

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, incidence of hip fracture has not changed. Evidence has shown increased mortality rates associated with COVID-19 infection. However, little is known about the outcomes of COVID-19 negative patients in a pandemic environment. In addition, the impact of vitamin D levels on mortality in COVID-19 hip fracture patients has yet to be determined.

Background: The recognised risk of post-operative venous thromboembolism (VTE), presenting as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), after elective total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) has always made the selection of suitable thromboprophylaxis treatment a clinical priority for orthopaedic surgeons. Over recent years there has been the emergence of new oral direct Factor Xa (FXa) inhibiting anticoagulants, which may replace the widely used low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs).

Methods: A systematic review of published English-language literature (completed in July 2009) and surgical type meta-analyses were conducted to compare the efficacy (risk of any DVT, PE and all-cause mortality) and safety (risk of major bleeding requiring clinical intervention) of oral direct FXa inhibiting anticoagulants with LMWHs in THA and TKA.

Results: Five eligible THA randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) with total of 9286 patients and three eligible TKA RCTs with 6917 patients were identified. The Der-Simonian-Laird random effects model was employed for each meta-analysis and heterogeneity between trials was explored statistically using the Mantel-Haenszel χ² test. The efficacy meta-analysis of THA RCTs revealed an odds ratio (OR) 0.46 (95% confidence interval (c.i.) 0.23, 0.92), which was significantly (P = 0.03) in favour of the oral FXa inhibitors but there was sizable heterogeneity amongst trials (P = 0.0002). Although the safety meta-analysis of THA RCTs showed an increase incidence of major bleeding with the use of oral FXa inhibitors, OR 1.71 (95% c.i. 0.67, 4.39), this risk was not statistically significant (P = 0.26) with little heterogeneity between trials (P = 0.44). The efficacy meta-analysis of TKA RCTs demonstrated an efficacy OR 0.56 (95% c.i. 0.42, 0.73), in favour of the oral FXa inhibitors (P = 0.0001) with no significant heterogeneity (P = 0.21). The safety meta-analysis of TKA RCTs showed an increased occurrence of major bleeding with oral FXa inhibitors, OR 1.79 (95% c.i. 0.83, 3.87), but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.14) and heterogeneity between trials was low (P = 0.54).

Conclusions: This review demonstrated an overall better efficacy for oral FXa inhibitors compared with LMWHs in thromboprophylaxis for both THA and TKA. Although it also revealed that oral FXa inhibitors were statistically as safe as LMWHs, there was clinically higher incidence of major bleeding with their use in both THA and TKA. These safety results coupled with the fact that currently no specific antidote exists, highlights the urgent need for further research and large RCTs to prove the clinical safety of all new oral direct FXa inhibiting anticoagulants.