Analysis of risk factors for readmission in elderly patients with hip fractures undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty / 中国骨伤

OBJECTIVE@#To explore the incidence and risk factors of readmission of elderly patients with hip fracture after hip hemiarthroplasty.@*METHODS@#A retrospective analysis of 237 elderly hip fracture patients who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty from February 2015 to October 2020 were performed. According to the readmission status of the patients at 3 months postoperatively, the patients were divided into readmission group (39 cases)and non-readmission group(198 cases). In readmission group, there were 7 males and 32 females with an average age of(84.59±4.34) years old, respectively, there were 34 males and 164 females with average age of (84.65±4.17) years old in non-readmission group. The general information, surgical status, hip Harris score and complications of patients in two groups were included in univariate analysis, and multivariate Logistic regression was used to analyze independent risk factors of patients' readmission.@*RESULTS@#The proportion of complications(cerebral infarction and coronary heart disease) in readmission group was significantly higher than that of non-readmission group (P<0.05), and intraoperative blood loss in readmission group was significantly higher than that of non-readmission group(P<0.05). Harris score of hip joint was significantly lower than that of non-readmission group(P<0.05). The proportion of infection, delirium, joint dislocation, anemia and venous thrombosis in readmission group were significantly higher than that of non-readmission group (all P<0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk factors for readmission of elderly patients with hip fracture after hip hemiarthroplasty included cerebral infarction, infection, delirium, dislocation, anemia and venous thrombosis (all P<0.05).@*CONCLUSION@#The complications of the elderly patients who were readmission after hip hemiarthroplasty for hip fractures were significantly higher than those who were non-readmission. Cerebral infarction, infection, delirium, dislocation, anemia and venous thrombosis are risk factors that lead to patient readmission. Corresponding intervention measures can be taken clinically based on these risk factors to reduce the incidence of patient readmissions.

Calcar Preservation Arthroplasty for Unstable Intertrochanteric Femoral Fractures in Elderly

BACKGROUND: The treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly is still controversial. The purpose of this study is to present treatment strategies for unstable intertrochanteric fractures with hemiarthroplasty using standard uncemented collared femoral stems and at the same time preserving the fractured calcar fragment. METHODS: Fifty-four patients aged 75 years or older with unstable intertrochanteric fractures were included in this prospective cohort study. All patients were treated with calcar preserving hemiarthroplasty using cementless collored femoral stems. Fractured calcar fragment was stabilized either by compaction between the implant and femur or fixed with cable grip system. Follow-up evaluations were performed at least 24 months and later. Palmer and Parker mobility score and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score were assessed. We also analyzed radiographs of the operated hip at each follow-up visit. RESULTS: The patients were 15 males and 39 females with a mean age of 81.3 years (range, 75 to 93 years). The average operative time was 86.6 minutes. The mean transfused blood units were 1.2 units. The average duration of hospital stay was 5.3 days. The preoperative mean mobility score was 6.20. This score was found to be 4.96 on postoperative third day and 5.90 at 24 months postoperatively. The results of the statistical analysis revealed significant increase in the mobility scores at each follow-up after three days. Radiological interpretation revealed no loosening in the cable-grip systems, and no significant subsidence (> 5 mm) of prosthesis was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Calcar preservation arthroplasty is a good option for elderly patients with severe osteoporosis, frail constitution and the patients who are at higher risk for second operation due to unstable intertrochanteric fractures.

Treatment Results of a Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Case Series: Treatment Method for Vancouver Type B2 Fractures Can Be Customized

BACKGROUND: Currently, an algorithmic approach for deciding treatment options according to the Vancouver classification is widely used for treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. However, this treatment algorithm based on the Vancouver classification lacks consideration of patient physiology and surgeon's experience (judgment), which are also important for deciding treatment options. The purpose of this study was to assess the treatment results and discuss the treatment options using a case series. METHODS: Eighteen consecutive cases with periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed. A locking compression plate system was used for osteosynthesis during the study period. The fracture type was determined by the Vancouver classification. The treatment algorithm based on the Vancouver classification was generally applied, but was modified in some cases according to the surgeon's judgment. The reasons for modification of the treatment algorithm were investigated. Mobility status, ambulatory status, and social status were assessed before the fracture and at the latest follow-up. Radiological results including bony union and stem stability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen cases were treated by osteosynthesis, two by revision arthroplasty and three by conservative treatment. Four cases of type B2 fractures with a loose stem, in which revision arthroplasty is recommended according to the Vancouver classification, were treated by other options. Of these, three were treated by osteosynthesis and one was treated conservatively. The reasons why the three cases were treated by osteosynthesis were technical difficulty associated with performance of revision arthroplasty owing to severe central migration of an Austin-Moore implant in one case and subsequent severe hip contracture and low activity in two cases. The reasons for the conservative treatment in the remaining case were low activity, low-grade pain, previous wiring around the fracture and light weight. All patients obtained primary bony union and almost fully regained their prior activities. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest reaching a decision regarding treatment methods of periprosthetic femoral fractures by following the algorithmic approach of the Vancouver classification in addition to the assessment of each patient's hip joint pathology, physical status and activity, especially for type B2 fractures. The customized treatments demonstrated favorable overall results.