BACKGROUND The hemoglobin threshold at which postoperative red-cell transfusion is warranted is controversial. We conducted a randomized trial to determine whether a higher threshold for blood transfusion would improve recovery in patients who had undergone surgery for hip fracture. METHODS We enrolled 2016 patients who were 50 years of age or older, who had either a history of or risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and whose hemoglobin level was below 10 g per deciliter after hip-fracture surgery. We randomly assigned patients to a liberal transfusion strategy (a hemoglobin threshold of 10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive transfusion strategy (symptoms of anemia or at physician discretion for a hemoglobin level of <8 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was death or an inability to walk across a room without human assistance on 60-day follow-up. RESULTS A median of 2 units of red cells were transfused in the liberal-strategy group and none in the restrictive-strategy group. The rates of the primary outcome were 35.2% in the liberal-strategy group and 34.7% in the restrictive-strategy group (odds ratio in the liberal-strategy group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.22), for an absolute risk difference of 0.5 percentage points (95% CI, −3.7 to 4.7). The rates of in-hospital acute coronary syndrome or death were 4.3% and 5.2%, respectively (absolute risk difference, −0.9%; 99% CI, −3.3 to 1.6), and rates of death on 60-day follow-up were 7.6% and 6.6%, respectively (absolute risk difference, 1.0%; 99% CI, −1.9 to 4.0). The rates of other complications were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS A liberal transfusion strategy, as compared with a restrictive strategy, did not reduce rates of death or inability to walk independently on 60-day follow-up or reduce in-hospital morbidity in elderly patients at high cardiovascular risk. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; FOCUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00071032.)

No abstract

Summary Background Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes. Methods For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813. Findings Between March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.63–1.09; p=0.18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1.91, 1.06–3.44; p=0.0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0.82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0.41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0.79). Interpretation In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws. Funding National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians’ Services Incorporated.

Therapeutic Level II. See page 128 for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract

The following is a summary of the recommendations of the AAOS' clinical practice guideline, Preventing Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Patients Undergoing Elective Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. This summary does not contain rationales that explain how and why these recommendations were developed, nor does it contain the evidence supporting these recommendations. All readers of this summary are strongly urged to consult the full guideline and evidence report for this information. We are confident that those who read the full guideline and evidence report will see that the recommendations were developed using systematic evidencebased processes designed to combat bias, enhance transparency, and promote reproducibility. This summary of recommendations is not intended to stand alone. Treatment decisions should be made in light of all circumstances presented by the patient. Treatments and procedures applicable to the individual patient rely on mutual communication between patient, physician, and other healthcare practitioners.

BackgroundThe growth of consumer-directed health plans has sparked increased demand for information regarding the cost and quality of healthcare services, including total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, the factors that influence patients' choice of provider when pursuing elective orthopaedic care, such as TJA, are poorly understood.Questions/purposes We evaluated the factors patients consider when selecting an orthopaedic surgeon and hospital for TJA. Methods Two hundred fifty-one patients who sought treatment from either an academic or community-based orthopaedic practice for primary TJA completed a 37-item survey using a 5-point Likert scale rating (''unimportant'' to ''very important'') regarding seven established clinical and nonclinical dimensions of care patients considered when selecting a provider and hospital. Result Patients rated physician manner (average Likert, 4.7) and physician quality (eg, outcomes) (average Likert, 4.6) as most important in their selection of surgeon and hospital for TJA. Despite the expressed importance of surgeon and hospital quality, only 46% of patients were able to find useful information to compare outcomes among surgeons, and 47% for hospitals that perform TJA. Conclusions Our findings suggest physician manner and surgical outcomes are the most important considerations for patients when choosing a provider for elective TJA. Cost sharing is the least important criterion patients considered. Patients expressed high motivation to seek out provider quality information but indicated accessible and actionable sources of information are lacking. Future efforts should be directed at developing clinically relevant, easily interpretable, objective, risk-adjusted measures of physician and hospital quality.

No abstract