Background A displaced femoral neck fracture in patients older than 70 years is a serious injury that influences the patient’s quality of life and can cause serious complications or death. Previous national guidelines and a Cochrane review have recommended cemented fixation for arthroplasty to treat hip fractures in older patients, but data suggest that these guidelines are inconsistently followed in many parts of the world; the effects of that must be better characterized. Questions/purposes The purpose of this study was to evaluate a large group of patients in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register to investigate whether the fixation method in hemiarthroplasty is associated with (1) the risk of reoperation; (2) the mortality rate; and (3) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods Longitudinally maintained registry data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register with high completeness (93%) and near 100% followup of deaths were used for this report. From 2005 to 2017, 104,993 hip fractures were registered in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Fractures other than intracapsular femoral neck fractures and operative methods other than bipolar hemiarthroplasty, such as osteosynthesis or THA, were excluded. The selection bias risk on using cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty is small in Norway because the decision is usually regulated by tender processes at each hospital and not by surgeon. A total of 7539 uncemented hemiarthroplasties (70% women, mean age, 84 years [SD 6] years) and 22,639 cemented hemiarthroplasties (72% women, mean age, 84 years [SD 6] years) were eligible for analysis. Hazard risk ratio (HRR) on reoperation and mortality was calculated in a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities (according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification), cognitive function, surgical approach, and duration of surgery. At 12 months postoperatively, 65% of patients answered questionnaires regarding pain and quality of life, the results of which were compared between the fixation groups. Results A higher overall risk of reoperation for any reason was found after uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HRR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.4–1.7; p < 0.001) than after cemented hemiarthroplasty. When assessing reoperations for specific causes, higher risks of reoperation because of periprosthetic fracture (HRR, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.5–7.5; p < 0.001) and infection (HRR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0–1.5; p = 0.037) were found for uncemented hemiarthroplasty than for cemented procedures. No differences were found in the overall mortality rate after 1 year (HRR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9–1.0; p = 0.12). Hemiarthroplasty fixation type was not associated with differences in patients’ pain (19 versus 20 for uncemented and cemented hemiarthroplasties respectively, p = 0.052) or quality of life (EuroQol [EQ]-VAS score 64 versus 64, p = 0.43, EQ5D index score 0.64 versus 0.63, p = 0.061) 1 year after surgery. ...

BackgroundPatients with hip fracture frequently have sarcopenia and are at great risk of loss of mobility. We have investigated if sarcopenia predicts change in mobility after hip fracture.MethodsThis is a prospective, multicenter observational study with one-year follow-up. Patients with hip fracture who were community-living and capable of walking before the fracture were included at three hospitals in Norway (2011–2013). The primary outcome of the study was change in mobility, measured by the New Mobility Score (NMS). Sarcopenia was determined postoperatively by anthropometry, grip strength, and NMS.ResultsWe included 282 participants and sarcopenia status was determined in 201, of whom 38% (77/201) had sarcopenia, 66% (128/194) had low muscle mass, 52% (116/222) had low grip strength and 8% (20/244) had low pre-fracture mobility (NMS < 5). Sarcopenia did not predict change in mobility (effect 0.2 points; 95% CI –0.5 to 0.9, P = 0.6), but it was associated with having lower mobility at one-year (NMS 5.8 (SD 2.3) vs. 6.8 (SD 2.2), P = 0.003), becoming a resident of a nursing home (odds ratio 3.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 12.4, P = 0.048), and the combined endpoint of becoming a resident of a skilled nursing home or death (odds ratio 3.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 12.2, P = 0.02).ConclusionsSarcopenia did not predict change in mobility in the year after hip fracture.

BackgroundSarcopenia is prevalent in older persons and is a risk factor for falls, fractures, and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine a) the feasibility of determining sarcopenia in patients with acute hip fracture, b) the prevalence of sarcopenia and c) associations of sarcopenia with nutritional status and comorbidities.MethodsA multicenter cross-sectional study on sarcopenia in male and female patients with acute hip fracture. Participants were previously ambulatory and living in the community. Sarcopenia was assessed postoperatively with muscle mass estimated by anthropometry using triceps skinfold, arm circumference, height, weight and sex. Grip strength was measured by Jamar dynamometer and pre-fracture mobility was by self-report using the New Mobility Score.ResultsOut of 282 patients, 202 were assessed for sarcopenia of whom 74 (37%) were diagnosed as sarcopenic. Sarcopenia was associated with age, odds ratio (OR) 1.4 per 5 years, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.1, 1.8], ASA Physical Status Classification System score, OR 2.3 per point, 95% CI [1.3, 4.3] and number of medications at discharge, OR 1.2 per medication, 95% CI [1.0, 1.3] and inversely associated with BMI, OR 0.8, 95% CI [0.7, 0.9] and serum albumin, OR 0.9, 95% CI [0.8,1.0].ConclusionsThirty-seven percent of assessed subjects were diagnosed with sarcopenia. Our data demonstrates that the prevalence of sarcopenia is associated with older age, malnutrition and comorbidities. Determining sarcopenia at the bedside was feasible in postoperative hip fracture patients by using grip strength, estimation of muscle mass by anthropometry and self-reported mobility.

No abstract

Background About one fourth of patients with hip fracture have cognitive impairment. These patients are at higher risk of surgical and medical complications and are often excluded from participating in clinical research. The aim of the present study was to investigate orthopaedic surgeons’ ability to determine the cognitive status of patients with acute hip fracture and to compare the treatment given to patients with and without cognitive impairment. Methods The cognitive function of 1474 hip fracture patients reported by the orthopaedic surgeons to the nationwide Norwegian Hip Fracture Register was compared with data registered in quality databases in two hospitals with orthogeriatric service on the same patients. Cognitive function registered in the quality databases was determined either by the short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) or by pre-fracture diagnosis of dementia. The information registered in the quality databases was defined as the reference standard. Cognitive function in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register was reported as: Chronic cognitive impairment? “Yes”, “Uncertain” or “No” by the orthopaedic surgeons. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values for chronic cognitive impairment reported to the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register by the orthopaedic surgeons was calculated. Baseline data and treatment of hip fractures in patients with and without cognitive impairment in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register were compared. Results Orthopaedic surgeons reported chronic cognitive impairment in 31% of the patients. Using documented dementia or IQCODE > 4.0 as the reference, this assessment of cognitive impairment by the orthopaedic surgeons had a sensitivity of 69%, a specificity of 90%, a positive predictive value of 78%, and a negative predictive value of 84% compared to information registered in the two hospital quality databases. There were no differences in type of hip fracture or type of surgical treatment by cognitive function. Conclusion The treatment of hip fractures was similar in patients with chronic cognitive impairment and cognitively well-functioning patients. The surgeons had an acceptable ability to identify and report chronic cognitive impairment in the peri-operative period, indicating that the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register is a valuable resource for future registry-based research also on hip fracture patients with chronic cognitive impairment.

Introduction Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is in widespread use, but there is uncertainty about its validity in patients with metal implants or after acute hip fracture and surgery. We aimed to investigate the use of single frequency tetrapolar BIA in patients with hip fracture by answering the following questions: 1) Are BIA measurements affected by recent hip fracture and surgical repair? 2) Are BIA measurements affected by the presence of metal implants used in hip fracture surgery? Setting Two hospitals in Bergen, Norway. Participants A convenience sample of 203 acute hip fracture patients. Methods Participants had their body composition measured by single frequency, tetrapolar BIA on the fractured and unfractured side of the body in the immediate postoperative period and at follow-up three months after hip fracture. Measurements from fractured and unfractured side and measurements in hospital and at follow-up were compared. BIA readings for hips treated with cannulated screws, compression hip screw and hip arthroplasty were compared. Results Resistance was lower on the side of the fractured hip compared to the unfractured side postoperatively, but not at follow-up. BIA readings did not differ by type of surgical implant. Conclusion Recent fracture and surgery influences single frequency tetrapolar BIA resistance. The presence of surgical implants in the hip do not affect BIA measurements. If BIA is used in acute hip fracture patients, the contralateral side to the fracture should be measured.

IntroductionThe treatment of proximal hamstring avulsions is controversial. While several trials have investigated the outcome for patients treated surgically, there is today no prospective trial comparing operative treatment with non-operative treatment. This protocol describes the design for the proximal hamstring avulsion clinical trial (PHACT)—the first randomised controlled trial of operative versus non-operative treatment for proximal hamstring avulsions.Methods and analysisPHACT is a multicentre randomised controlled trial conducted across Sweden, Norway and Finland. Eligible patients (60 participants/treatment arm) with a proximal hamstring avulsion of at least two of three tendons will be randomised to either operative or non-operative treatment. Participants allocated to surgery will undergo reinsertion of the tendons with suture anchors. The rehabilitation programme will be the same for both treatment groups. When patient or surgeon equipoise for treatment alternatives cannot be reached and randomisation therefore is not possible, patients will be invited to participate in a parallel observational non-randomised cohort. The primary outcome will be the patient-reported outcome measure Perth hamstring assessment tool at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include the Lower Extremity Functional Score, physical performance and muscle strength tests, patient satisfaction and MR imaging. Data analysis will be blinded and intention-to-treat analysis will be preformed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Ethical Committee of Uppsala University (DNR: 2017–170) and by the Norwegian ethical board (REC: 2017/1911). The study will be conducted in agreement with the Helsinki declaration. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT03311997

Aims Hip fracture patients have high morbidity and mortality. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess the quality of care of patients with hip fracture, including those with chronic cognitive impairment (CCI). Our aim was to compare PROMs from hip fracture patients with and without CCI, using the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR). Methods PROM questionnaires at four months (n = 34,675) and 12 months (n = 24,510) after a hip fracture reported from 2005 to 2018 were analyzed. Pre-injury score was reported in the four-month questionnaire. The questionnaires included the EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire, and information about who completed the questionnaire. Results Of the 34,675 included patients, 5,643 (16%) had CCI. Patients with CCI were older (85 years vs 81 years) (p < 0.001), and had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification compared to patients without CCI. CCI was unrelated to fracture type and treatment method. EQ-5D index scores were lower in patients with CCI after four months (0.37 vs 0.60; p < 0.001) and 12 months (0.39 vs 0.64; p < 0.001). Patients with CCI had lower scores for all dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L pre-fracture and at four and 12 months. Conclusion Patients with CCI reported lower health-related quality of life pre-fracture, at four and 12 months after the hip fracture. PROM data from hip fracture patients with CCI are valuable in the assessment of treatment. Patients with CCI should be included in future studies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):454–465.