The characteristics and predictors of mortality in periprosthetic fractures around the knee.

Aims: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around the knee are challenging injuries. This study aims to describe the characteristics of knee PPFs and the impact of patient demographics, fracture types, and management modalities on in-hospital mortality. Methods: Using a multicentre study design, independent of registry data, we included adult patients sustaining a PPF around a knee arthroplasty between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Univariate, then multivariable, logistic regression analyses were performed to study the impact of patient, fracture, and treatment on mortality. Results: Out of a total of 1,667 patients in the PPF study database, 420 patients were included. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.4%. Multivariable analyses suggested that American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, history of peripheral vascular disease (PVD), history of rheumatic disease, fracture around a loose implant, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) during hospital stay were each independently associated with mortality. Each point increase in ASA grade independently correlated with a four-fold greater mortality risk (odds ratio (OR) 4.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 14.06); p = 0.026). Patients with PVD have a nine-fold increase in mortality risk (OR 9.1 (95% CI 1.25 to 66.47); p = 0.030) and patients with rheumatic disease have a 6.8-fold increase in mortality risk (OR 6.8 (95% CI 1.32 to 34.68); p = 0.022). Patients with a fracture around a loose implant (Unified Classification System (UCS) B2) have a 20-fold increase in mortality, compared to UCS A1 (OR 20.9 (95% CI 1.61 to 271.38); p = 0.020). Mode of management was not a significant predictor of mortality. Patients managed with revision arthroplasty had a significantly longer length of stay (median 16 days; p = 0.029) and higher rates of return to theatre, compared to patients treated nonoperatively or with fixation. Conclusion: The mortality rate in PPFs around the knee is similar to that for native distal femur and neck of femur fragility fractures. Patients with certain modifiable risk factors should be optimized. A national PPF database and standardized management guidelines are currently required to understand these complex injuries and to improve patient outcomes.

Characteristics and risk factors of UCS fracture subtypes in periprosthetic fractures around the hip.

Aims: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) following hip arthroplasty are complex injuries. This study evaluates patient demographic characteristics, management, outcomes, and risk factors associated with PPF subtypes over a decade. Methods: Using a multicentre collaborative study design, independent of registry data, we identified adults from 29 centres with PPFs around the hip between January 2010 and December 2019. Radiographs were assessed for the Unified Classification System (UCS) grade. Patient and injury characteristics, management, and outcomes were compared between UCS grades. A multinomial logistic regression was performed to estimate relative risk ratios (RRR) of variables on UCS grade. Results: A total of 1,104 patients were included. The majority were female (57.9%; n = 639), ethnically white (88.5%; n = 977), used mobility aids (67%; n = 743), and had a median age of 82 years (interquartile range (IQR) 74 to 87). A total of 77 (7%) had pain prior to the PPF. The most common UCS grade was B2 (33%; n = 368). UCS type D fractures had the longest length of stay (median 19 days (IQR 11 to 26)), highest readmission to hospital (21%; n = 9), and highest rate of discharge to step-down care (52%; n = 23). Multinomial regression suggests that uncemented femoral stems are associated with a reduced risk of UCS C (RRR 0.36 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2 to 0.7); p = 0.002) and increased risk of UCS A (RRR 3.3 (95% CI 1.9 to 5.7); p < 0.001), compared to UCS B fracture. Conclusion: The most common PPF type in elderly frail patients is UCS B2. Uncemented stems have a lower risk of UCS C fractures compared to cemented stems. A national PPF database is needed to further identify correlation between implants and fracture subtypes.

The perceptions of clinicians using low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for orthopaedic pathology: A national qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is a non-invasive treatment modality for delayed union or non-union of acute fractures. We aimed to assess the current use of LIPUS at a national level in the United Kingdom, why and how clinicians use it, what treatment protocols are followed, and what the current perceptions are on this technology. METHODOLOGY: Using a detailed online survey compromised of 20 questions delivered to known LIPUS users, we were able to collect qualitative data on indication of use, type of machine used, personal views on the technology, frequency of usage, and treatment protocols. Each question was peer-reviewed to exclude bias. RESULTS: A total of 70 respondents completed the survey. LIPUS was used by most clinicians for cases of non-union (N = 55, 78.5%) and delayed union (N = 51, 72.8%). The majority of respondents personally used a LIPUS device between 1 and 5 times in 12 months (N = 38, 54.3%). Most considered LIPUS a failure after three to six months of treatment without clinical improvement (N = 39, 55.7%). A total of 32 respondents (45.7%) mentioned the need for funding approval before accessing LIPUS technology. Poor revision surgery candidates (N = 48, 68.6%) and atrophic non-union (N = 46, 65.7%) were the most frequently cited reasons for using LIPUS technology as treatment. Most participants (N = 48, 68.6%) considered LIPUS to be cost-effective. Despite most clinicians being comfortable with the use of LIPUS, some respondents did not understand the basic science underpinning the technology nor could explain the need for LIPUS to patients comfortably. CONCLUSION: LIPUS technology may have a significant role to play in the treatment of orthopaedic fracture related pathology. Regular users perceived the technology to be cost-effective and efficacious. Further research should standardize treatment protocols and aim to establish a national LIPUS registry.

Single stage versus two-stage orthoplastic management of bone infection.

INTRODUCTION: Bone infection cases with major soft tissue loss have conventionally been treated with a staged orthoplastic approach, addressing the infection first followed by definitive management to achieve bony stability and soft tissue cover. In the last few decades, specialist centers have advocated for single stage bony stabilization with soft tissue coverage. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of patients that underwent a single stage versus a two-stage orthoplastic intervention. METHODS: Using an existing 2009-2019 database from a single major trauma centre, we identified all adults with a diagnosis of fracture related infection (FRI) or osteomyelitis (OM). The primary outcome was resolution of infection. Secondary outcomes included time to bony union, amputation, failure of orthopaedic fixation, mortality, and return to theatre. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients were included. 71 patients (74%) underwent a single stage procedure; out of which 61 were FRI. 25 patients (26%) underwent a two-stage procedure; out of which 24 were FRI. The average follow up for the single stage and two-stage cohorts was 32.1 and 30.3 months, respectively. Resolution of infection without the need for an amputation was achieved in 67 (94.4%) patients in the single stage cohort and in 23 (92%) patients in the two-stage cohort. When compared to the two-stage group, the single stage cohort had less recurrence of infection (9.9% versus 12%, p = 0.72), lower rates of amputation (8.5% versus 12%, p = 0.69), lower rates of failure of orthopaedic fixation (11.1% versus 13%, p = 0.82), but higher average time to bony union (15.25 months versus 12.35, p = 0.42). The differences were not statistically significant. A total of 37 patients (52.1%) had an unplanned return to theatre in the single stage compared to 12 (48%) in the two-stage cohort. In subgroup analysis of FRI cases, open fractures had a longer time to bony union when compared to closed fractures (19.7 versus 11.6 months, p = 0.01). No mortality was observed in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The single stage orthoplastic approach to bone infection is effective if planned carefully with clinical outcomes comparable to the two-stage approach. Further research should examine factors associated with unplanned return to theatre and any variation in treatment of bone infection across regions.

The Impact of Prehospital Transport Mode on Mortality of Penetrating Trauma Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal mode of transport of trauma patients from the scene to the hospital remains unknown. We aimed to study the impact of different prehospital modes of transport of penetrating trauma patients on hospital mortality. METHODS: Using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program 2010 to 2016 database, we identified all adults with a penetrating injury. Univariate then multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to study the correlation between the mode of transport and in-hospital mortality, adjusting for several covariates. RESULTS: A total of 92,427 subjects were included. The overall mean transport time for patients transported by a ground ambulance, helicopter, fixed wing ambulance, and police/private vehicle were 32.2, 61.2, 68.9, and 28.2 minutes, respectively. Multivariable analyses revealed that compared with ground ambulance, helicopter transport was associated with a 34% decrease in the odds of mortality (odds ratio = 0.66, P < .0001), whereas police transport and private vehicle transport were associated with a 52% decrease in the odds of mortality (odds ratio = 0.48, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Helicopter, police, and private vehicle transports are associated with a decreased odds of mortality compared with ground ambulance. Further research should examine the variation in levels of care within different modes of prehospital transport.

Most of the Variation in Prehospital Scene Time Is Not Related to Patient Factors, Injury Characteristics, or Geography.

OBJECTIVE: The time spent on scene by emergency medical services remains highly variable. We sought to investigate how much of the prehospital scene time variation in penetrating trauma patients could be explained by prehospital factors. METHODS: Using the 2010 to 2016 Trauma Quality and Improvement database, all adult penetrating trauma patients were included. The prehospital scene time was defined as the time from emergency medical service scene arrival to departure. Using all Trauma Quality and Improvement database variables including patient, injury (eg, Injury Severity Score), geography, and logistical (eg, transport mode) factors, multivariable linear regression models were created to predict the prehospital scene time. The prehospital scene time was treated as a continuous variable, and the degree to which the models could explain the variation in scene time was measured using the coefficient of determination (R). RESULTS: A total of 45,560 patients were included. The median prehospital scene time was 6 minutes (interquartile range, 3-10 minutes). The R for factors in the multivariable regression model was 0.06, suggesting that 94% of the prehospital scene time variation cannot be explained by the wide range of prehospital factors. CONCLUSION: Most of the variation in prehospital scene time cannot be explained by injury characteristics. The variation may be caused by logistical delays or system-related factors.

Every minute counts: The impact of pre-hospital response time and scene time on mortality of penetrating trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Prompt surgical control of hemorrhage is crucial in penetrating trauma patients. We aimed to study the impact of prehospital response time (PreRespT) and scene time (SceneT) on hospital mortality. METHODS: Using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) 2010-2016 database, we identified all adults with penetrating injury. We defined PreRespT as time from EMS dispatch to scene arrival, and SceneT as time spent on scene. Univariate then multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to study the independent correlation between PreRespT and SceneT on hospital mortality, adjusting for several covariates. RESULTS: Out of a total of 1,403,470 patients, 43,467 patients were included. Multivariable analyses suggested that: 1) every minute increase in PreRespT independently correlates with a 2% increase in mortality (OR 1.02, p < 0.0001), and 2) every minute increase in SceneT independently correlates with a 1% increase in mortality (OR 1.01, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the penetrating injury trauma patient, PreRespT and SceneT independently correlate with hospital mortality. This data suggests that a faster PreRespT and a "scoop and run" strategy may be more beneficial in this population.