ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In low-to-middle-income countries (LMIC), the orthogeriatric model of care is still in its early stages of development. This study describes the initial results of the first online fragility hip fracture database to be setup in the Philippines using a modified minimum common dataset to generate outcomes data based on current hospital practices. METHODS: A multicentre prospective cohort study among 12 Philippine hospitals was conducted from June 2020 to February 2021. Thirty-day mortality, morbidity and mobility were measured. Significant factors associated with mortality were determined. RESULTS: 158 elderly patients with fragility hip fractures were included in the study. Nine patients (5.7%) were confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 infection. Median time of injury to admission was at least 3 days (IQR: 1.0-13.7). Overall, 80% of patients underwent surgical intervention with a median time from admission to surgery of at least 5 days (IQR: 2.5-13.6). Thirty-day mortality and morbidity rates for acute fragility fractures were 3.7%. Factors significantly associated with early mortality were poor prefracture mobility, COVID-19 infection, radiograph of the abnormal chest and conservative treatment. Non-surgical patients had no functional mobility or were wheelchair users and had a significantly higher morbidity rate than surgically treated patients (13.6% vs 1.8%; p=0.031). CONCLUSION: Despite treatment delays unique to an LMIC, short-term outcomes remain favourable for non-COVID-19 fragility hip fracture patients treated with surgery. Prompt admission and multidisciplinary care for elderly hip fracture patients while maintaining protective measures for COVID-19 infection control are recommended. The quality of data collected illustrates how this online database can provide a framework for a sustainable audit or registry as well as provide a platform for the introduction of orthogeriatric concepts at a multiregional scale.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hip Fractures , Humans , Aged , Prospective Studies , Pandemics , Hip Fractures/epidemiology , Hip Fractures/surgery , HospitalizationSubject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement/adverse effects , Embolism, Fat/etiology , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Shoulder Fractures/surgery , Aged , Diagnosis, Differential , Electrocardiography , Electroencephalography , Embolism, Fat/diagnosis , Fatal Outcome , Female , Humans , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnosis , Shoulder Fractures/diagnostic imaging , Syndrome , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Ultrasonography, DopplerABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Primary total hip replacement performed through an incision that is =10 cm in length has been advocated as a minimally invasive technique. Proponents have claimed that mini-incision techniques reduce blood loss, transfusion requirements, postoperative pain, and the length of the hospital stay compared with standard techniques through a longer incision. However, we are aware of no well-designed comparison study that supports these claims. The purpose of the present study was to compare the short-term results of a mini-incision with a standard incision technique for total hip replacement. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients who underwent 135 primary unilateral total hip replacements (fifty with use of a mini-incision [=10 cm] and eighty-five with use of a standard incision) by three surgeons at one hospital were studied. Each surgeon selected patients to have a mini-incision procedure and performed a standard approach in the remaining patients. A posterior approach was used for all procedures. In-hospital data were collected retrospectively, and the initial postoperative radiographs were analyzed. Because of the selection process, the patients who had a mini-incision had both a significantly lower average body-mass index (p = 0.008) and a lower average score on the American Society of Anesthesiologists rating (p = 0.006), indicating that they were thinner and healthier than the patients who had a standard incision. RESULTS: With the numbers of patients available, no significant differences were found between the groups with respect to the average surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, in-hospital transfusion rate, length of hospital stay, or the patients' disposition after discharge. The mini-incision group was found to have a significantly higher risk of a wound complication (p = 0.02), a higher percentage of acetabular component malposition (p = 0.04), and poor fit and fill of femoral components inserted without cement (p = 0.0036). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that the mini-incision technique resulted in less bleeding or less trauma to the soft tissues of the hip, factors that would have produced a quicker recovery and a shorter hospital stay, than did the standard technique. The present study, which was based on the authors' initial experience with the mini-incision technique, failed to confirm the positive clinical outcomes reported by previous uncontrolled cohort studies, and the findings suggest that further analysis of this new technique is needed before it can be recommended for general use.