Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) incidence following hip replacement surgery continues to rise. There is a national drive to centralise PFF treatment within specialist centres to improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The financial implications of treating PFFs must be analysed to guide allocation of funding.

Data were collected for 129 PFFs admitted from 02/04/2014–19/05/2020. Financial data were provided by the Patient Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS) team. Primary outcomes were cost, revenue and margin for each PFF. Additional data were collected on length of stay (LOS), critical care requirements and clinical outcomes. Statistical comparisons were made between treatment type (fixation vs revision). Significance was set to p<0.05.

Across the entire cohort, total cost was £2,389,901, total revenue was £1,695,435 and total loss was £694,481. Highest costs were ward stay (£714,591), theatre utilisation (£382,625), and overheads (£249,110). Median cost was £15,863 (IQR, £11,092-£22,221), median revenue was £11,305 (IQR, £7,147-£15,222) and median loss was £3,795 (IQR, £605-£8687). Median LOS was 21 days (IQR 13–34) and 28.7% patients required critical care admission.

Ninety-six patients were treated operatively with either fixation (n=53) or revision (n=43). Median operating time was lower for fixation versus revision (132 [IQR, 115–185] vs 201 [IQR, 159–229] minutes, p=0.001). Median cost (£17,455 [IQR, £13,095-£22,824] vs £17,399 [£13,394-£23,404]) and median loss (£5,774 [IQR, £2,092-£10,472] vs £3,860 [IQR, £96-£7,601]) were similar for fixation and revision (p=0.99 and p=0.18, respectively). Median revenue was greater for revision versus fixation (£13,925 [IQR, £11,294-£17,037] vs £12,160 [IQR, £8,486-£14,390], p=0.02). There was no difference in LOS (21 [13–34] vs 21 [14–30] days, p=0.94), critical care requirements (20 [37.7%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.30), reoperations (3 [5.7%] vs 6 [14.0%], p=0.29], local complications (8 [15.1%) vs 12 [27.9%], p=0.20) or systemic complications (11 [20.8%] vs 11 [25.6%], p=0.75) between fixation and revision.

PFF treatment costs are high with inadequate reimbursement through tariff. Work is needed to address this disparity and reduce costs associated with LOS, theatre utilisation and implants. Treatment cost should not be used when deciding between fixation and revision surgery.

There is sufficient evidence that specialised orthopaedic services, in the form of ‘hub’ or specialist centres, which undertake a high volume of workload in revision arthroplasty generate superior outcomes.

The East Midlands South Orthopaedic Network (EMSSON) was set up in 2015 and is an example of a ‘hub and spoke’ network. The network has recently undergone adaptation in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is paucity of data considering the impact of such adaptations in a post-pandemic era and on adherence to advice given.

Two data sets were obtained from the EMSSON data base, pertaining to pre and post pandemic eras respectively. Datasets were analysed and compared for case volumes, proportion of overall arthroplasty volume discussed and adherence to agreed management plans.

Dataset one included 107 cases, of these 99 cases were discussed (54 knees and 45 hips). This equates to 35% of total revision arthroplasty volume recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR), by units involved in the network. A change of plan was recommended in 45/99 cases (45%), of these 41 (93%) were adhered to. Dataset two included 99 cases, of these 98 were discussed (39 knees and 59 hips). This equates 68% of revision arthroplasty volume performed by the region according to NJR records. A change in plan was recommended in 20 cases (20.5%), all of which were adhered to. One case was referred to the ‘hub’ for surgery.

Following the implementation of recent adaptations, the efficiency of the EMSSON network has significantly improved. A greater volume and proportion of revision arthroplasty cases are now being discussed on a weekly basis. Management plans for which adaptations are suggested have decreased, indicating an educational value of such networking practices. Adherence to agreed plans also showed improvement (p<0.03).

These findings demonstrate a trend towards NHS England's target of 100% of revision arthroplasty cases undergoing MDT discussion. Changes made in light of the Covid-pandemic, are felt to have contributed significantly to the overall performance of regional networking and have been well received by consultants involved.

To investigate the use of the Ilizarov circular fixator in treating diaphyseal non-union following previous intra-medullary nailing. The stability of each non-union was augmented using an Ilizarov fixator with nail retention.

We retrospectively reviewed nine consecutive patients (mean age 31 years, range 24–53 years) who were treated in our institution between 1993 and 1997 (mean follow up 19.2 months, range 6–33 months). Two femoral, three tibial and four humeral non-unions were included in the study. All patients were referred from other centers after failure to achieve bone union with intramedullary nailing. Patients who had non-union with other fixation devices in situ, those with active infection and those who had their non-unions explored at the time of fixator application were excluded from the study. The patients had undergone an average of 2.4 operations (range 1–5 operations) prior to fixator augmentation.

The circular fixator was applied over the nail as a closed procedure (non-union not surgically explored) in all nine patients. The non-union was manipulated either by compression or oscillation during fixator treatment. The mean duration of fixator treatment was 6.2 months (range 3–11 months).

Outcome measures assessed were bone union, deformity, shortening and functional outcome. Bone union was achieved in all nine patients. The bone results were graded as six excellent, one good and two fair. All patients reported a reduction in pain and satisfaction with their final outcome.

We recommend the use of the Ilizarov fixator with nail retention in resistant long bone union in carefully selected patients. This technique is particularly useful in the humerus where it avoids the morbidity associated with nail removal and plating. The augmentation method can shorten the fixator time and has the advantage of a simpler frame construct.