Aim This UK based multi-centre study reports clinical characteristics, early outcomes and predictors of mortality in 34 consecutive COVID-19-positive hip fractures so that the lessons learnt could be utilised in other parts of World who are at a different phase of the pandemic. Methods This study analysed patient admitted with hip fractures with COVID positive swabs, between March and May’2020 in three large hospitals covering a population of nearly two million. Data was collected on demographic profile, peri-operative variables, post-operative complications and mortality. The specific aim was to identify any variables, which could predict high 30-day mortality. Results Overall, 12% of hip fractures were COVID positive with the mortality rate of 41.2%. The higher age ( p = 0.036) and male gender ( p = 0.025) was significantly associated with mortality and most of the deaths were between American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade 3 and 4 patients. The patients having intramedullary (IM) nailing were more likely to die ( p = 0.02). There was no difference in laboratory parameters but there was significant difference in findings on chest radiographs ( p < 0.001), post-operative oxygen requirements ( p = 0.006) and early respiratory complications ( p = 0.006). Conclusion This study suggests that the mortality following surgery for a hip fracture in COVID-positive patients is strikingly high and is associated with higher age and male gender. Higher mortality has been observed for extracapsular fracture operated with intramedullary nailing. In the immediate post-operative period, rapid deterioration of chest imaging, higher oxygen requirement and early pulmonary complications can serve as warning signs and predicting factors for higher mortality.

Background On the 11th March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic. Multiple new guidelines were proposed and existing models of social, domestic and hospital care altered. Most healthcare systems were largely unprepared for this, and the pandemic has tested their adaptability. This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the demographics, presentation, clinical management and outcomes of patients with proximal femoral (hip) fractures comparing them to a similar cohort of patients admitted a year earlier. Methods This retrospective multi-centre cohort study compared all patients admitted with hip fractures between 1st March and 30th May 2019 (group PC: pre-COVID-19) with hip fracture patients admitted over the same time period during the pandemic in 2020 (group C: COVID-19). The data was obtained from the hospitals’ local and National Hip Fracture Databases. Mortality data was checked with the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Primary outcomes were time to theatre, in-patient length of stay and 30-day mortality. Results A total of 580 patients were included (304 group PC, 276 group C). Patient demographics including Charlson Comorbidity Index and Nottingham Hip Fracture Scores were broadly similar across the two cohorts. There was a significant reduction in the percentage of total hip replacements (11 to 5%, p = 0.006) in group C. There was an increase in conservative management (1 to 5%, p = 0.002) in group C. Time to theatre was significantly delayed in group C (43.7 h) vs group PC (34.6 h) (p ≤ 0.001). The overall length of hospital stay was significantly longer in group PC (16.6 days) vs group C (15 days) (p = 0.025). The 30-day mortality rate in group C was 9.8% compared to 8.2% in group PC (p = 0.746), but for COVID-19 (+) patients, it was significantly higher at 38.2% vs 5.8% in COVID-19 (−) patients (p < 0.001). Conclusion This is one of the largest multi-centre comparative cohort study in the literature to date examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of hip fracture patients. Whilst mortality rates were similar in both groups, COVID-19-positive patients were almost seven times more likely to die, reflecting the seriousness of the COVID-19 infection and its sequelae in such elderly, vulnerable patients.

Purpose Object classification and localization is a key task of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tool. Although there have been numerous generic deep learning (DL) models developed for CAD, there is no work in the literature to evaluate their effectiveness when utilized in diagnosing fractures in proximity of joint implants. In this work, we aim to assess the performance of existing classification systems on binary and multi-class problems (fracture types) using plain radiographs. In addition, we evaluated the performance of object detection systems using the one- and two-stage DL architectures. Methods A data set of 1272 X-ray images of Peri-prosthetic Femur Fracture PFF was collected. The fractures were annotated with bounding boxes and classified according to the Vancouver Classification System (type A, B, C) by two clinical specialists. Four classification models such as Densenet161, Resnet50, Inception, VGG and two object detection models such as Faster RCNN and RetinaNet were evaluated, and their performance compared. Six confusion matrix-based measures were reported to evaluate fracture classification. For localization of the fracture, Average Precision and localization accuracy were reported. Results The Resnet50 showed the best performance with $$95\%$$ 95 % accuracy and $$94\%$$ 94 % F1-score in the binary classification: fracture/normal. In addition, the Resnet50 showed $$90\%$$ 90 % accuracy in multi-classification (normal, Vancouver type A, B and C). Conclusions A large data set of PFF images and the annotations of fracture features by two independent assessments were created to implement a DL-based approach for detecting, classifying and localizing PFFs. It was shown that this approach could be a promising diagnostic tool of fractures in proximity of joint implants.

No abstract

Background: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are effective in treating inflammatory diseases and have been increasingly utilized over the past decade. Patients who receive bDMARDs have been shown to be at an increased risk for surgical site infection following surgical procedures. The severe consequences of infection following orthopaedic surgery have led to the practice of withholding bDMARDs perioperatively; however, there has been no definitive evidence showing a clear benefit of withholding the use of bDMARDs, and in doing so, patients may be at an increased risk for higher disease activity. As such, the purpose of the present study was to compare the risk of infection, delayed wound healing, and disease flares associated with the use of bDMARDs in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgical procedures. Methods:We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed CENTRAL databases for studies comparing continuing and withholding the use of bDMARDs in patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures. Inclusion criteria were established following the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) approach: Population = patients who underwent orthopaedic surgical procedures and who were taking bDMARDs. Intervention = withholding the use of bDMARDs. Comparator = continuing the use of bDMARDs. Outcomes = surgical site infection, delayed wound healing, and disease flares. Article titles and abstracts were screened prior to review of the full text. Overall odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for pooled effects were calculated.Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, providing data for 7,344 patients, including 2,385 patients who continued and 4,959 who withheld their bDMARDs perioperatively. Continuing bDMARDs was associated with a significantly lower risk of disease flares (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.95; p = 0.04) and nonsignificant increases in surgical site infections (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.49; p = 0.49) and wound complications (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.48 to 9.85; p = 0.32). Conclusions:The present systematic review highlights the limited evidence supporting the current practice of stopping bDMARDs perioperatively. These findings suggest that patients may not be at an increased risk for developing infection or wound complications if bDMARDs are continued but are at an increased risk for disease flare if bDMARDs are withheld. However, our conclusions are limited by the retrospective and heterogenous nature of the data, and possibly by a lack of study power.

No abstract