High incidence of complications and poor clinical outcome in the operative treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures Zuurmond, R.G.; van, Wijhe W.; van Raay, J.J.; Bulstra, Sjoerd K. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is among the most successful operative procedures known to medicine, because of which the prevalence of this procedure is rapidly increasing. However, with the success the downside becomes increasingly important as well: the complications associated with THA. Although the number of serious complications on the long term is low, a serious complication is the periprosthetic fracture (PPF) of the femur. Often, these fractures occur in older, compromised patients, raising mortality rates. 10 The increase in the number of patients treated with THA, as well as people getting older, create a large population 'at risk'. In the literature, the increasing incidence of PPF has been reported by a number of study groups. 7,15Several retrospective studies have been published, however, with limited information on clinical outcomes. 1,11,16 Using the Swedish Arthroplasty Register, Lindahl et al. were able to report a large prospective series and identify risk factors for PPF (e.g., stem design). 8 Derived from questionnaires at follow-up, their patients showed an impaired hip function and low health status. We performed a retrospective study in two hospitals and included the Oxford hip score questionnaire and a review of the complete radiologic follow-up. According to clinical observations and literature reports, we expected high major complication rates, especially re-operations. Osteosynthesis performed for Vancouver type-B fractures were expected to have a high failure rate as previously described in literature reports. We posed the following research questions: Does the treated PPF population show a high complication rate? Do these patients show an impaired functional outcome and is this influenced by the method of treatment? Background:The purpose of this observational study was to determine the clinical results of the operative treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures over a long period of time. Methods: The medical records of patients treated between 1993 and 2006 for a periprosthetic femoral fracture were obtained after a survey in two major hospitals. Radiographic evaluation was performed according to the Vancouver classification. All patients were contacted to fill out the Oxford hip score. Results: A total of 80 PPFs were identified in 79 patients. For 71 patients with 71 fractures, medical records and radiographs were available. The mean age at the time of fracture was 73.4 years (range: 38-95 years). The mean interv...

IMPORTANCE Decision-making on management of proximal femoral fractures in frail patients with limited life expectancy is challenging, but surgical overtreatment needs to be prevented. Current literature provides limited insight into the true outcomes of nonoperative management and operative management in this patient population.OBJECTIVE To investigate the outcomes of nonoperative management vs operative management of proximal femoral fractures in institutionalized frail older patients with limited life expectancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter cohort study was conducted between September 1, 2018, and April 25, 2020, with a 6-month follow-up period at 25 hospitals across the Netherlands. Eligible patients were aged 70 years or older, frail, and institutionalized and sustained a femoral neck or pertrochanteric fracture. The term frail implied at least 1 of the following characteristics was present: malnutrition (body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] <18.5) or cachexia, severe comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class of IV or V), or severe mobility issues (Functional Ambulation Category Յ2).EXPOSURES Shared decision-making (SDM) followed by nonoperative or operative fracture management. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D) utility score by proxies and caregivers. Secondary outcome measures were QUALIDEM (a dementia-specific quality-of-life instrument for persons with dementia in residential settings) scores, pain level (assessed by the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors With Limited Ability to Communicate), adverse events (Clavien-Dindo classification), mortality, treatment satisfaction (numeric rating scale), and quality of dying (Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire). RESULTSOf the 172 enrolled patients with proximal femoral fractures (median [25th and 75th percentile] age, 88 [85-92] years; 135 women [78%]), 88 opted for nonoperative management and 84 opted for operative management. The EQ-5D utility scores by proxies and caregivers in the nonoperative management group remained within the set 0.15 noninferiority limit of the operative management group (

BackgroundProximal femoral fractures are strongly associated with morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. Mortality is highest among frail institutionalized elderly with both physical and cognitive comorbidities who consequently have a limited life expectancy. Evidence based guidelines on whether or not to operate on these patients in the case of a proximal femoral fracture are lacking. Practice variation occurs, and it remains unknown if nonoperative treatment would result in at least the same quality of life as operative treatment. This study aims to determine the effect of nonoperative management versus operative management of proximal femoral fractures in a selected group of frail institutionalized elderly on the quality of life, level of pain, rate of complications, time to death, satisfaction of the patient (or proxy) and the caregiver with the management strategy, and health care consumption.MethodsThis is a multicenter, observational cohort study. Frail institutionalized elderly (70 years or older with a body mass index < 18.5, a Functional Ambulation Category of 2 or lower pre-trauma, or an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 4 or 5), who sustained a proximal femoral fracture are eligible to participate. Patients with a pathological or periprosthetic fractures and known metastatic oncological disease will be excluded. Treatment decision will be reached following a structured shared decision process. The primary outcome is quality of life (Euro-QoL; EQ-5D-5 L). Secondary outcome measures are quality of life measured with the QUALIDEM, pain level (PACSLAC), pain medication use, treatment satisfaction of patient (or proxy) and caregivers, quality of dying (QODD), time to death, and direct medical costs. A cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis will be done, using the EQ-5D utility score and QUALIDEM score, respectively. Non-inferiority of nonoperative treatment is assumed with a limit of 0.15 on the EQ-5D score. Data will be acquired at 7, 14, and 30 days and at 3 and 6 months after trauma.DiscussionThe results of this study will provide insight into the true value of nonoperative treatment of proximal femoral fractures in frail elderly with a limited life expectancy. The results may be used for updating (inter)national treatment guidelines.Trial registrationThe study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR7245; date 10-06-2018).

No abstract

No abstract

Summary Hip fractures are associated with significant healthcare costs. In frail institutionalized patients, the costs of nonoperative management are less than operative management with comparable short-term quality of life. Nonoperative management of hip fractures in patients at the end of life should be openly discussed with SDM. Purpose The aim was to describe healthcare use with associated costs and to determine cost-utility of nonoperative management (NOM) versus operative management (OM) of frail institutionalized older patients with a proximal femoral fracture. Methods This study included institutionalized patients with a limited life expectancy aged ≥ 70 years who sustained a proximal femoral fracture in the Netherlands. Costs of hospital- and nursing home care were calculated. Quality adjusted life years (QALY) were calculated based on EuroQol-5D-5L utility scores at day 7, 14, and 30 and at 3 and 6 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated from a societal perspective. Results Of the 172 enrolled patients, 88 (51%) patients opted for NOM and 84 (49%) for OM. NOM was associated with lower healthcare costs at 6 months (NOM; €2425 (SD 1.030), OM; €9325 (SD 4242), p < 0.001). The main cost driver was hospital stay (NOM; €738 (SD 841) and OM; €3140 (SD 2636)). The ICER per QALY gained in the OM versus NOM was €76,912 and exceeded the threshold of €20,000 per QALY. The gained QALY were minimal in the OM group in patients who died within 14- and 30-day post-injury, but OM resulted in more than triple the costs. Conclusion OM results in significant higher healthcare costs, mainly due to the length of hospital stay. For frail patients at the end of life, NOM of proximal femoral fractures should be openly discussed in SDM conversations due to the limited gain in QoL. Trial registration. Netherlands Trial Register (NTR7245; date 10–06-2018). Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00198-022-06638-x.

Introduction Proximal femoral fractures are common in frail institutionalised older patients. No convincing evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment strategy for those with a limited pre-fracture life expectancy, underpinning the importance of shared decision-making (SDM). This study investigated healthcare providers’ barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of SDM. Methods Dutch healthcare providers completed an adapted version of the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire to identify barriers and facilitators. If ≥20% of participants responded with ‘totally disagree/disagree’, items were considered barriers and, if ≥80% responded with ‘agree/totally agree’, items were considered facilitators. Results A total of 271 healthcare providers participated. Five barriers and 23 facilitators were identified. Barriers included the time required to both prepare for and hold SDM conversations, in addition to the reflective period required to allow patients/relatives to make their final decision, and the number of parties required to ensure optimal SDM. Facilitators were related to patients’ values, wishes and satisfaction, the importance of SDM for patients/relatives and the fact that SDM is not considered complex by healthcare providers, is considered to be part of routine care and is believed to be associated with positive patient outcomes. Conclusion Awareness of identified facilitators and barriers is an important step in expanding the use of SDM. Implementation strategies should be aimed at managing time constraints. High-quality evidence on outcomes of non-operative and operative management can enhance implementation of SDM to address current concerns around the outcomes.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the percentage of completely healed meniscal tears after arthroscopic repair combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) for the different vascular zones of the meniscus. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library and Emcare were searched on 19 May 2020 for articles reporting healing rates after arthroscopic meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR for the different meniscal vascular zones as assessed by second-look arthroscopy. Data on meniscal tears were extracted as located in zones 1, 2 or 3, according to the Cooper classification. Studies were graded in quality using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Pooled analyses were performed utilizing a random-effects model. Meta-analyses were performed using R version 3.6.2 and SPSS statistical software version 25.0. The study was registered with PROSPERO (ID:CRD42020176175). Results Ten observational cohort studies met the inclusion criteria, accounting for 758 meniscal tear repairs in total. The pooled overall proportion of healing was 78% (95% CI 72–84%). The mean weighted proportion of healing was 83% (95% CI 76–90%) for studies (n = 10) reporting zone 1 tears and 69% (95% CI 59–79%) for studies (n = 9) reporting zone 2 tears. No study reported healing rates for zone 3 tears. The pooled overall odds ratio was 2.5 (95% CI 1.00−6.02), indicating zone 1 tears as 2.5 times more likely to heal than zone 2 tears. Conclusion This study demonstrates that meniscal tears localized in vascular zone 1 were more likely to heal than those in zone 2. Level of evidence IV.