The Use of Oxandrolone in the Management of Severe Burns: A Multi-service Survey of Burns Centres and Units Across the United Kingdom.

Introduction Severe thermal burns are a catastrophic injury. Those surviving the initial insult are subject to life-long disability, prolonged hospital admission, nutritional issues and poor wound healing. Oxandrolone has been shown to reduce hospital duration and promote lean body mass. Despite not being licenced for use in burns trauma within the United Kingdom (UK), services across the country utilise Oxandrolone in the management of severe burns. We aim to analyse the use of Oxandrolone in major burns across burns services within the UK. Methods We conducted a survey across all burn centres and units across the UK. Any burns service provider with experience in patient management of patients sustaining burns with a total body surface area >15% was included. All services were identified using the British Burns Association website. We conducted a survey of all centres and units and contacted them via telephone through the trust's switchboard. Responses were accepted from any healthcare staff familiar with the day-to-day in-patient care of patients on the ward. Services with no in-patient services were excluded. Results A total of 24 burns centres and services responded to our survey. Twelve of the respondents were in a burns unit and 12 were in a burns centre. Eight respondents were paediatric facilities, and the remaining 16 dealt with adult burns. In total, 16/24 (66.6%) services reported using Oxandrolone. Conversely, 8/24 (33.3%) burns services denied using Oxandrolone. 7/12 (58.3%) burns units use Oxandrolone in the management of burns. 5/12 (42.7%) burns units do not use Oxandrolone in severe burns. 9/12 (75%) of burns centres described using Oxandrolone, whilst the remaining 3/12 (25%) did not.  Discussion Oxandrolone is used varyingly across burns services across the UK. Burns centres were more likely to use Oxandrolone compared to units. We also find that more paediatric services used Oxandrolone in comparison to adult services. Studies have shown that the benefit of Oxandrolone is not age-dependent. Further work is required to assess the impact of this medication on patients with severe burns and national guidance would help further improve burns management across the UK.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing the Rate of Post-operative Periprosthetic Fracture Following Hip Arthroplasty With a Polished Taper Slip versus Composite Beam Stem.

BACKGROUND: We compared the incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (POPFF) following hip arthroplasty with either a cemented polished taper slip (PTS) stem or a cemented composite beam (CB) stem in comparative studies. METHODS: A systematic review of comparative studies, written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals since the year 2000, was conducted. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.The overall study qualities were good. There were 913,021 patients from 18 cohorts included in the meta-analysis. There were 294,540 patients who received a CB stem and 618,481 received a PTS stem. Cohorts were classified as high- or low-risk for POPFF based on patient risk factors. A metanalysis was performed using a random effects model, and the relative incidence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was reported. RESULTS: The patients at low risk of POPFF had an incidence rate ratio of 3.14 (CI: 2.48, 3.98) for the PTS group versus the CB group. Whereas, the patients at high risk of POPFF had an incidence rate ratio of 9.87 (CI: 3.63, 26.80) for the PTS group versus the CB group. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of POPFF is lower when hip arthroplasty was performed using a CB stem versus a PTS stem. This protective effect was greatest in patients who had a higher risk of POPFF. Surgeons should consider the effect of cemented stem choice on the risk of subsequent periprosthetic femur fracture, particularly in frail or elderly patients who are at a higher risk of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture.

Uncemented total hip arthroplasty can be used safely in the elderly population.

AIMS: "Get It Right First Time" (GIRFT) and NHS England's Best Practice Tariff (BPT) have published directives advising that patients over the ages of 65 (GIRFT) and 69 years (BPT) receiving total hip arthroplasty (THA) should receive cemented implants and have brought in financial penalties if this policy is not observed. Despite this, worldwide, uncemented component use has increased, a situation described as a 'paradox'. GIRFT and BPT do, however, acknowledge more data are required to support this edict with current policies based on the National Joint Registry survivorship and implant costs. METHODS: This study compares THA outcomes for over 1,000 uncemented Corail/Pinnacle constructs used in all age groups/patient frailty, under one surgeon, with identical pre- and postoperative pathways over a nine-year period with mean follow-up of five years and two months (range: nine months to nine years and nine months). Implant information, survivorship, and regular postoperative Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were collected and two comparisons undertaken: a comparison of those aged over 65 years with those 65 and under and a second comparison of those aged 70 years and over with those aged under 70. RESULTS: Overall revision rate was 1.3% (13/1,004). A greater number of revisions were undertaken in those aged over 65 years, but numbers were small and did not reach significance. The majority of revisions were implant-independent. Single component analysis revealed a 99.9% and 99.6% survival for the uncemented cup and femoral component, respectively. Mean patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) improvement for all ages outperformed the national PROMs and a significantly greater proportion of those aged over 65/69 years reached and maintained a meaningful improvement in their OHS earlier than their younger counterparts (p < 0.05/0.01 respectively). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that this uncemented THA system can be used safely and effectively in patient groups aged over 65 years and those over 69 years, with low complication and revision rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):293-300.