Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) may affect patient outcomes. We aimed to evaluate whether hip fracture patients admitted on warfarin or NOAC therapy were at risk of operative delay, prolonged length of stay, or increased mortality. Methods We collected data for 845 patients admitted to our centre between October 2014 and December 2016. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to test the association between warfarin and NOAC therapy on time to surgery and length of stay. Variables in the regression model were age, sex, admission AMTS, pre-fracture mobility, ASA score, fracture type, and operation type. Fisher's Exact Test was used to evaluate whether warfarin or NOAC therapy delayed surgery beyond 36 or 48 hours, or decreased 30-day, 6-month, or 12-month survival. Results Time to surgery was delayed in anticoagulated patients (p=0.028). NOAC therapy was independently associated with increased time to surgery beyond 36 hours (p=0.001), although not beyond 48 hours (p=0.355), whereas warfarin therapy was not associated with either. Anticoagulation did not increase length of stay (p=0.331). Warfarin therapy significantly reduced 30-day survival (p=0.007), but NOAC therapy did not (p=0.244). Neither warfarin nor NOAC therapy affected further survival. Conclusions NOAC therapy delays time to surgery beyond the NHS England 'Best Practice Tariff' in hip fracture patients. We aim to prospectively investigate long-term outcomes. Without a NOAC antidote, policy must change to ensure time-appropriate surgery for patients on NOACs. Preoperative involvement of the haematology team is essential.
This study showed that since ADM introduction to our centre, more breast reconstructions have been of the implant-only type with consequent reductions in the more complex and expensive autologous techniques. Implant-only procedures that incorporated ADM use had similar complication rates to those that did not.
We report the case of a Brodie abscess of the femoral capital epiphysis from which was isolated. This is to the best of our knowledge the first report of a Brodie abscess of the femoral capital epiphysis from which was isolated.
Background: Rehabilitation after surgery of the injured anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is crucial for satisfactory outcomes. Many trials have investigated this process after ACL reconstruction. The treatment of acute ACL ruptures with a repair technique has recently regained interest, although very little information is available about appropriate rehabilitation for such patients. The objective of this review was to evaluate studies on rehabilitation following ACL repair. Methods: A systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted for patients undergoing a rehabilitation programme after ACL repair. The review has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, Registration number: CRD42020173450). Elements of rehabilitation care we included in our strategy are postoperative bracing, home-based rehabilitation, strengthening exercises, proprioception and neuromuscular training. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomised trials of any form investigating rehabilitation protocols after repair of the injured ACL. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility of trials. Results: No trials were included. Available literature of lower evidence was included for discussion. Conclusions: No information is available from randomised trials to indicate whether there is any difference between rehabilitation protocols for patients who have undergone primary ACL repair.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.