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.

No abstract

Graphical abstract

Background:Orthopaedic injuries may lead to an increased incidence of intimate partner violence (IPV) during recovery as people dependent on others’ help are at a higher risk for abuse. Additionally, there is a lack of understanding of how IPV affects injury recovery. In women being treated for an orthopaedic injury, we aimed to determine the number of new IPV disclosures in the 12 months after an injury and to explore the impact of IPV on recovery.Methods:We enrolled 250 female participants from 6 orthopaedic fracture clinics in Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and Finland. IPV disclosure and clinical outcomes were assessed at the initial visit and during the 12-month follow-up period.Results:Of 250 participants, 81 (32.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 26.6% to 38.2%]) had a history of IPV in their lifetime and disclosed this at their initial orthopaedic clinic appointment. Twenty-one participants (12.4% [95% CI, 7.5% to 17.8%]) who did not disclose abuse at the initial visit disclosed IPV during the follow-up. In our a priori unadjusted analysis, disclosure of IPV at the initial appointment or a subsequent follow-up appointment was associated with a 32% lower likelihood of returning to a pre-injury level of function with no restrictions regarding responsibilities at home (hazard ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.99]; p = 0.046). Participants disclosing IPV had lower health-related quality of life on the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) at the 6-month-follow-up, with adjusted mean differences of −5.3 (95% CI, −10.2 to −0.4, p = 0.04) for the visual analog scale and −0.06 (95% CI, −0.11 to −0.01; p = 0.02) for the Function Index. They also had lower Function Index scores at the final 12-month follow-up visit, with an adjusted mean difference of −0.06 (95% CI, −0.10 to −0.02; p = 0.006).Conclusions:A surprisingly high percentage of women disclosed IPV within 12 months after the injury. Our exploratory results suggest that women who disclose IPV may have lower health-related quality of life. This study supports the need to optimize orthopaedic clinics to provide appropriate support for asking about and assisting individuals who experienced IPV. Additional research is warranted to further explore these findings.Level of Evidence:Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.