ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A hip hemiarthroplasty is the treatment of choice for a displaced femoral neck fracture in elderly patients not eligible for total hip arthroplasty. There is continuing debate about the optimal surgical approach for this operation, with the most commonly used approaches being posterior and lateral. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of the posterior and the lateral approaches in patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture treated by hemiarthroplasty. METHOD: A retrospective study was carried out in two high-volume teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Electronic patient records were searched for patient characteristics, the operative approach and adverse outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1009 patients with a median age of 86 years were included. The posterior approach was used in 51.1% of patients. There were no differences in surgical site infection and periprosthetic fracture rates. There was a trend towards more dislocations in the posterior approach (2.9% vs. 1.4% with an OR of 2.1, 95% CI 0.8-5.1). An uncemented hemiprosthesis was used in 62.7% of patients. Deep surgical site infections and periprosthetic fractures occurred more often in the uncemented group (OR 2.9 and 7.4, respectively). CONCLUSION: No differences in adverse outcomes between both approaches could be shown. This study did confirm the relatively high incidence of post-operative complications in uncemented prostheses. Therefore, the cemented prosthesis should be the treatment of choice, with the approach dependent on surgeon preference and experience.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Femoral Neck Fractures , Hemiarthroplasty , Hip Prosthesis/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications , Aged, 80 and over , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/instrumentation , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods , Bone Cements/therapeutic use , Cohort Studies , Female , Femoral Neck Fractures/epidemiology , Femoral Neck Fractures/surgery , Hemiarthroplasty/adverse effects , Hemiarthroplasty/instrumentation , Hemiarthroplasty/methods , Humans , Incidence , Male , Netherlands/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of septic arthritis (SA) after a joint puncture and reconsider the value of the hygiene measures stipulated by the Taskforce Infection Prevention (TIF). DESIGN: Prospective study. METHOD: We determined the number of joint punctures among general practitioners and specialists in the Apeldoorn area during a three-month period (from October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013). Secondly, we performed an analysis on the incidence of SAs in this period and the subsequent month, and ascertained if these were related to a joint puncture. Finally, we conducted a retrospective analysis on joint puncture related SA during the period January 2008 - December 2013. This was executed to determine whether our results were representative. RESULTS: The incidence of SA after a joint puncture was 1 in 27,000. CONCLUSION: The incidence of SA after a joint puncture can be considered low. Due to the low baseline incidence, we anticipate that it is unlikely that the prescriptive measures outlined by TIF will lead to a cost-effective reduction in incidence of SA.
Subject(s)
Arthritis, Infectious/etiology , Glucocorticoids/adverse effects , Arthritis, Infectious/epidemiology , Female , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Humans , Incidence , Injections, Intra-Articular/adverse effects , Male , Netherlands/epidemiology , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES: Nursing is known for its high prevalence of hand dermatitis, mainly caused by the intense exposure to wet work in nursing activities. We aimed to study the characteristics of wet work exposure in nursing. METHOD: Trained observers monitored the duration and frequency of different wet work activities in 45 randomly chosen nurses from different wards during a morning shift, using a method of continuous observation based on labour-observation techniques. RESULTS: Wet work in intensive care units accounted for 24% of the overall morning shift duration, with a frequency of 49 incidents. This was 16% in dialysis wards, with a frequency of 30 incidents, and 9% on regular wards, with a frequency of 39 incidents. The wet work activities had short mean duration cycles. The mean duration of occlusion by gloves was 3.1 min on regular wards and 6.7 min in intensive care units. DISCUSSION: The characteristics of wet work in nurses differed substantially, depending on the ward. According to the German regulation TRGS 531, our observations classify nursing as a wet work occupation, due to the frequency of wet work rather than its duration. The mean duration of occlusion in our observations was short, which makes an occlusion-induced irritating effect doubtful. Reduction in wet work exposure in nursing on regular wards could focus on the reduction of the frequency of hand-washing and patient-washing. We suggest increasing the use of gloves for patient washing. Although this will increase exposure to occlusion from gloves, it may reduce the frequency of exposure to water and soap by about a quarter.
