Faculty Bibliography

Purpose: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known complication of hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures (FNF) with various prophylactic anticoagulants utilized to decrease risk. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and perioperative outcomes associated with aspirin for VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty for FNF. Methods: Medical records of 1,220 patients who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) at an urban academic center from 2011 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes, including length of stay (LOS), VTE, 90-day hospital encounters, and discharge disposition, were collected. Outcomes for patients prescribed aspirin (n = 214) were compared to those prescribed non-aspirin VTE prophylaxis (n = 1006) using propensity score matching. Results: Patients who received aspirin had higher rates of THA (36.0 vs 26.7%; p = 0.008). There were no significant risk-adjusted differences in the incidence of VTE (0.5 vs 0.5%, p = 1.000) and 90-day readmissions (10.4 vs 12.3%, p = 0.646) between patients prescribed aspirin and non-aspirin VTE prophylaxis, respectively. Patients prescribed non-aspirin agents had higher rates of non-home discharge (73.9 vs 58.5%; p < 0.001) and longer LOS (143.5 vs 124.9 h; p = 0.005). Sub-analysis of patients prescribed aspirin and non-aspirin prophylaxis based on comorbidity scores demonstrated no difference in VTE incidence for low (0.0 vs 1.6%, p = 1.000) and high scores (0.0 vs 0.0%, p = 1.000), respectively. Conclusion: Aspirin is not associated with increased incidence of VTE after HHA or THA for FNF. Aspirin prophylaxis should be considered in hip fracture patients to mitigate bleeding risk, particularly those with low to intermediate VTE risk. Level of evidence: Level III, Retrospective study.

This study"™s purpose is to determine if patients treated for hip fracture at highest risk for poor functional outcomes, shorter time to death, and death within 1-year can be predicted at the time of admission. We hypothesized that the Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged (STTGMA) tool can be used to predict risk of these variables. Between February 2019"“July 2020, 544 patients ≥ 55-years-old were treated for hip fracture [AO/OTA 31A/B, 32A/C]. Each patient"™s demographics, functional status, and injury details were used to calculate their respective risk (STTGMA) score at time of admission. Patients were divided into risk quartiles by STTGMA score. Patients were contacted by phone to complete EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ5D-3L) questionnaires on functional status. Comparative analyses were conducted on outcomes and EQ5D-3L questionnaire results. 439 patients (80.7%) had at least 1-year follow-up. 82 patients (18.7%) died within 1-year after hospitalization. Mean STTGMA score was 1.67% ± 4.49%. The highest-risk cohort experienced a 42x (p < 0.01) and 2.5x (p = 0.01) increased rate of 1-year mortality compared to the minimal- and low-risk groups respectively. The highest-risk cohort had the shortest time to death (p = 0.015). The highest-risk cohort had the lowest EQ5D index (p < 0.01) and VAS scores (p < 0.01) along with the highest rate of 30 day readmission (p < 0.01) and the longest length of stay (p < 0.01). The STTGMA tool provides important prognostic information for middle-aged and geriatric hip fracture patients that can help modulate care levels. This information is useful when counseling patients, their families, and caregivers on expected outcomes.

Background: Operative management is often required for fractures of the elbow, with treatment goals aiming to restore stability, reduction, and early range of motion. The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors for necessitating the application of an external fixator, and to compare range of motion and functional outcomes between patients who required an elbow external fixator to those who did not. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that patients who require an external fixator will have worse elbow range of motion and functional outcomes when compared to those who did not. Patients and methods: This is a retrospective study of 391 patients who presented at a Level-I trauma center between March 2011 and January 2021 for operative management of a fracture/fracture-dislocation of the distal humerus (AO/OTA 13A-C) and/or proximal ulna and/or radius (AO/OTA 21A-C). A primary analysis was performed to determine risk factors for necessitating the application of an external fixator. A secondary analysis was performed comparing elbow range-of-motion and functional outcomes between cases and controls. Results: 391 patients were identified; 26 required external fixation (cases) and 365 did not (controls). Significant risk factors for necessitating placement of an external fixator included large BMI (OR = 1.087, 95 % CI = 1.007"“1.173, p = 0.033), elbow dislocation (OR = 7.549, 95 % CI = 2.387"“23.870, p = 0.001), open wound status (OR = 9.584, 95 % CI = 2.794"“32.878, p < 0.001), and additional non-contiguous orthopaedic injury (OR = 9.225, 95 % CI = 2.219"“38.360, p = 0.002). Elbow ROM was poorer in the external fixator group with regards to extension (−15°), flexion (+19.4°), and pronation (+14.3°) (p < 0.05). In addition, those who did not need external fixation had better functional scores (+20.4 points MEPI) (p < 0.05). Discussion: The use of external fixation about the elbow is associated with significantly worse initial injuries and results in poorer outcomes. These results can be used to inform the surgeon-patient discussion regarding treatment options and expected functional outcomes. Level of evidence: III.

OBJECTIVE:To compare the outcomes of patients with segmental bone loss who underwent repair with the induced membrane technique (IMT) with a matched cohort of nonunion fractures without bone loss. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. SETTING/METHODS:Academic medical center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Two cohorts of patients, those with upper and lower extremity diaphyseal large segmental bone loss and those with ununited fractures, were enrolled prospectively between 2013 and 2020. Sixteen patients who underwent repair of 17 extremities with segmental diaphyseal or meta-diaphyseal bone defects treated with the induced membrane technique were identified, and matched with 17 patients who were treated for 17 fracture nonunions treated without an induced membrane. Sixteen of the bone defects treated with the induced membrane technique were due to acute bone loss, and the other was a chronic aseptic nonunion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Healing rate, time to union, functional outcome scores using the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA) and pain assessed by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). RESULTS:The initial average defect size for patients treated with the induced membrane technique was 8.85 cm. Mean follow-up times were similar with 17.06 ± 10.13 months for patients treated with the IMT, and 20.35 ± 16.68. months for patients treated without the technique. Complete union was achieved in 15/17 (88.2%) of segmental bone loss cases treated with the IMT and 17/17 (100%) of cases repaired without the technique at the latest follow up visit. The average time to union for patients treated with the induced membrane technique was 13.0 ± 8.4 months and 9.64 ± 4.7 months for the matched cohort. There were no significant differences in reported outcomes measured by the SMFA or VAS. Patients treated with the induced membrane technique required more revision surgeries than those not treated with an induced membrane. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Outcomes following treatment of acute bone loss from the diaphysis of long bones with the induced membrane technique produces clinical and radiographic outcomes similar to those of long bone fracture nonunions without bone loss that go on to heal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Operative management is often required for fractures of the elbow, with treatment goals aiming to restore stability, reduction, and early range of motion. The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors for necessitating the application of an external fixator, and to compare range of motion and functional outcomes between patients who required an elbow external fixator to those who did not. HYPOTHESIS/UNASSIGNED:We hypothesize that patients who require an external fixator will have worse elbow range of motion and functional outcomes when compared to those who did not. PATIENTS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This is a retrospective study of 391 patients who presented at a Level-I trauma center between March 2011 and January 2021 for operative management of a fracture/fracture-dislocation of the distal humerus (AO/OTA 13A-C) and/or proximal ulna and/or radius (AO/OTA 21A-C). A primary analysis was performed to determine risk factors for necessitating the application of an external fixator. A secondary analysis was performed comparing elbow range-of-motion and functional outcomes between cases and controls. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:391 patients were identified; 26 required external fixation (cases) and 365 did not (controls). Significant risk factors for necessitating placement of an external fixator included large BMI (OR = 1.087, 95 % CI = 1.007-1.173, p = 0.033), elbow dislocation (OR = 7.549, 95 % CI = 2.387-23.870, p = 0.001), open wound status (OR = 9.584, 95 % CI = 2.794-32.878, p < 0.001), and additional non-contiguous orthopaedic injury (OR = 9.225, 95 % CI = 2.219-38.360, p = 0.002). Elbow ROM was poorer in the external fixator group with regards to extension (-15°), flexion (+19.4°), and pronation (+14.3°) (p < 0.05). In addition, those who did not need external fixation had better functional scores (+20.4 points MEPI) (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:The use of external fixation about the elbow is associated with significantly worse initial injuries and results in poorer outcomes. These results can be used to inform the surgeon-patient discussion regarding treatment options and expected functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/UNASSIGNED:III.

There has been a paradigm shift towards fixing the posterior malleolus in trimalleolar ankle fractures. This study evaluated whether a surgeon's preference to intraoperatively flip or not flip patients from prone to supine for medial malleolar fixation following repair of fibular and posterior malleoli impacted surgical outcomes. A retrospective patient cohort treated at a large urban academic center and level 1 trauma center was reviewed to identify all operative trimalleolar ankle fractures initially positioned prone. One hundred and forty-seven patients with mean 12-month follow up were included and divided based on positioning for medial malleolar fixation, prone or supine (following closure, flip and re-prep and drape). Data was collected on patient demographics, injury mechanism, perioperative variables, and complication rates. Postoperative reduction films were reviewed by orthopedic traumatologists to grade the accuracy of anatomic fracture reduction. Overall, 74 (50.3%) had the medial malleolus fixed prone, while 73 (49.7%) were flipped and fixed supine. No differences in demographics, injury details, and fracture type existed between the groups. The supine group had a higher rate of initial external fixation (p=0.047), longer operative time in minutes (p<0.001), and a higher use of plate and screw constructs for medial malleolar fixation (p=0.019). There were no differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes and complication rates. This study demonstrated that intraoperative change in positioning for improved medial malleolar visualization in trimalleolar ankle fractures results in longer operative times but similar radiographic and clinical results. The decision of operative position should be based on surgeon comfort.

BACKGROUND:Concomitant upper extremity and hip fractures present a challenge in postoperative mobilization in the geriatric population. Operative fixation of proximal humerus fractures allows for upper extremity weight bearing. This retrospective study compared outcomes between operative and non-operative proximal humerus fracture patients with concomitant hip fractures. METHODS:A trauma database of 13,396 patients age > 55 years old was queried for concomitant hip and proximal humerus fracture patients between 2014-2021. Medical records were reviewed for demographics, hospital quality measures, Neer classification, morphine milligram equivalents (MME), and outcomes. All hip fractures were treated operatively. Patients were grouped based on operative vs. non-operative treatment of their proximal humerus fracture. Primary outcomes included comparing postoperative ambulatory status, pain, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) need, discharge disposition, and readmission rates. RESULTS:Forty-eight patients (0.4%) met inclusion criteria. Twelve patients (25%) underwent operative treatment for their proximal humerus fracture and 36 (75%) received non-operative treatment. Patients with operative fixations were younger (p < 0.01), had more complex Neer classifications (p = 0.031), more likely to be community ambulators (p < 0.01), and required more inpatient MMEs (p < 0.01). There were no differences in LOS (p = 0.415), need for ICU (p = 0.718), discharge location (p = 0.497), 30-day readmission (p = 0.228), or 90-day readmission (p = 0.135) between cohorts. At 6 months postoperatively, among community or household ambulators, a higher percentage of operative patients returned to their baseline ambulatory functional status, however, this was not significant (70% vs. 52%, p = 0.342). There were three deaths in the non-operative cohort and no deaths in the operative cohort. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients with hip fractures and concomitant proximal humerus fractures treated operatively required more inpatient MMEs and trended toward maintaining baseline ambulatory function. There were no differences in inpatient LOS, ICU need, discharge location, or readmissions. Future larger, multicenter studies are needed to further delineate if operative repair of concomitant proximal humerus fractures provides a benefit in the geriatric population.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine the factors associated with discharge location in patients with hip fractures and whether home discharge was associated with a lower readmission and complication rate. METHODS:Hip fracture patients who presented to our academic medical center for operative management of a hip fracture were enrolled into an IRB-approved hip fracture database. Radiographs, demographics, and injury details were recorded at the time of presentation. Patients were grouped based upon discharge disposition: home (with or without home services), acute rehabilitation facility (ARF), or sub-acute rehabilitation facility (SAR). RESULTS:The cohorts differed in marital status, with a greater proportion of patients discharged to home being married (51.7% vs. 43.8% vs. 34.1%) (P < 0.05). Patients discharged to home were less likely to require an assistive device (P < 0.05). Patients discharged to home experienced fewer post-operative complications (P < 0.05) and had lower readmission rates (P < 0.05). Being married was associated with an increased likelihood of discharge to home (OR = 1.679, CI = 1.391-2.028, P < 0.001). Being enrolled in Medicare/Medicaid was associated with decreased odds of discharge to home (OR = 0.563, CI = 0.457-0.693, P < 0.001). Use of an assistive device was associated with decreased odds of discharge to home (OR = 0.398, CI = 0.326-0.468, P < 0.001). Increases in CCI (OR = 0.903, CI = 0.846-0.964, P = 0.002) and number of inpatient complications (OR = 0.708, CI = 0.532-0.943, P = 0.018) were associated with decreased odds of home discharge. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Hip fracture patients discharged to home were healthier and more functional at baseline, and also less likely to have had a complicated hospital course. Those discharged to home also had lower rates of readmission and post-operative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on long-term outcomes in the geriatric hip fracture population. We hypothesize that COVID + geriatric hip fracture patients had worse outcomes at 1-year follow-up. Between February and June 2020, 224 patients > 55 years old treated for a hip fracture were analyzed for demographics, COVID status on admission, hospital quality measures, 30- and 90-day readmission rates, 1-year functional outcomes (as measured by the EuroQol- 5 Dimension [EQ5D-3L] questionnaire), and inpatient, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates with time to death. Comparative analyses were conducted between COVID + and COVID- patients. Twenty-four patients (11%) were COVID + on admission. No demographic differences were seen between cohorts. COVID + patients experienced a longer length of stay (8.58 ± 6.51 vs. 5.33 ± 3.09, p < 0.01) and higher rates of inpatient (20.83% vs. 1.00%, p < 0.01), 30-day (25.00% vs. 5.00%, p < 0.01), and 1-year mortality (58.33% vs. 18.50%, p < 0.01). There were no differences seen in 30- or 90-day readmission rates, or 1-year functional outcomes. While not significant, COVID + patients had a shorter average time to death post-hospital discharge (56.14 ± 54.31 vs 100.68 ± 62.12, p = 0.171). Pre-vaccine, COVID + geriatric hip fracture patients experienced significantly higher rates of mortality within 1 year post-hospital discharge. However, COVID + patients who did not die experienced a similar return of function by 1-year as the COVID- cohort.