Background: Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications. Methods:We randomised 2970 patients from 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were ≥45 years of age were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 hours of diagnosis; 1487 patients) or standard care (1483 patients). The co-primary outcomes were 1.) mortality, and 2.) a composite of major complications (i.e., mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation, and patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02027896. Findings:The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 4-9) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 hours (IQR 10-42) in the standard-care group, p<0.0001. Death occurred in 140 patients (9%) assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 patients (10%) assigned to standard care; hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.72-1.14; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1%, 95% CI -1-3%; p=0.40. The primary composite outcome occurred in 321 patients (22%) randomised to accelerated surgery and 331 patients (22%) randomised to standard care; HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.13; ARR 1%, 95% CI -2-3%; p=0.71.Interpretation: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared to standard care.

Background: Hospitals worldwide have postponed all nonessential surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, but non-COVID-19 patients are still in urgent need of care. Uncertainty about a patient's COVID-19 status risks infecting health care workers and non-COVID-19 inpatients. We evaluated the use of quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) screening for COVID-19 on admission for all patients with fractures. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients older than 18 years admitted with low-energy fractures who were tested by RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 at any time during hospitalization. Two periods based on the applied testing protocol were defined. During the first period, patients were only tested because of epidemiological criteria or clinical suspicion based on fever, respiratory symptoms, or radiological findings. In the second period, all patients admitted for fracture treatment were screened by RT-qPCR. Results: We identified 15 patients in the first period and 42 in the second. In total, 9 (15.8%) patients without clinical or radiological findings tested positive at any moment. Five (33.3%) patients tested positive postoperatively in the first period and 3 (7.1%) in the second period ( P = 0.02). For clinically unsuspected patients, postoperative positive detection went from 3 of 15 (20%) during the first period to 2 of 42 (4.8%) in the second ( P = 0.11). Clinical symptoms demonstrated high specificity (92.1%) but poor sensitivity (52.6%) for infection detection. Conclusions: Symptom-based screening for COVID-19 has shown to be specific but not sensitive. Negative clinical symptoms do not rule out infection. Protocols and separated areas are necessary to treat infected patients. RT-qPCR testing on admission helps minimize the risk of nosocomial and occupational infection. Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective cohort study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract

Introduction: Stemmed total knee arthroplasty (STKA) periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) are an emerging problem affecting frail patients. Their surgical fixation is challenging, due to intramedullary involvement and poor bone stock. Polyaxial locking plating has yielded good results in implant-related femur fractures. We hypothesized that this treatment would provide similar results for STKA PPFs. Methods: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with a femoral PPF or inter-implant fracture around a knee revision stem who had undergone open reduction and periprosthetic-specific polyaxial plate fixation. Results: We found 14 cases of mean age 85.4 years. Cerclages were used in 80% of cases. Fixation of a mean 8.6 cortices around the revision stem was achieved, with an overall screw density of 1:2 or 1:3. Four patients lost their ability to walk, while four experienced postoperative local complications. Bone healing was achieved in all except one who died during hospitalization. The 13 remaining survived the first year of follow-up. Conclusion: STKA PPFs are an emerging and challenging problem affecting frail patients. Treatment using polyaxial locking plates provides stable fixation allowing early mobilization despite high complication rates.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. Given name and family name of María Jurado Ruiz was incorrect.