RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures (HF) are common among the aging population, and surgery within 48 h is recommended. Patients can be hospitalized for surgery through different pathways, either trauma or medicine admitting services. AIM: To compare management and outcomes among patients admitted through the trauma pathway (TP) vs medical pathway (MP). METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included 2094 patients with proximal femur fractures (AO/Orthopedic Trauma Association Type 31) who underwent surgery at a level 1 trauma center between 2016-2021. There were 69 patients admitted through the TP and 2025 admitted through the MP. To ensure comparability between groups, 66 of the 2025 MP patients were propensity matched to 66 TP patients by age, sex, HF type, HF surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiology score. The statistical analyses included multivariable analysis, group characteristics, and bivariate correlation comparisons with the χ² test and t-test. RESULTS: After propensity matching, the mean age in both groups was 75-years-old, 62% of both groups were females, the main HF type was intertrochanteric (TP 52% vs MP 62%), open reduction internal fixation was the most common surgery (TP 68% vs MP 71%), and the mean American Society of Anesthesiology score was 2.8 for TP and 2.7 for MP. The majority of patients in TP and MP (71% vs 74%) were geriatric (≥ 65-years-old). Falls were the main mechanism of injury in both groups (77% vs 97%, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in pre-surgery anticoagulation use (49% vs 41%), admission day of the week, or insurance status. The incidence of comorbidities was equal (94% for both) with cardiac comorbidities being dominant in both groups (71% vs 73%). The number of preoperative consultations was similar for TP and MP, with the most common consultation being cardiology in both (44% and 36%). HF displacement occurred more among TP patients (76% vs 39%, P = 0.000). Time to surgery was not statistically different (23 h in both), but length of surgery was significantly longer for TP (59 min vs 41 min, P = 0.000). Intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were not statistically different (5 d vs 8 d and 6 d for both). There were no statistical differences in discharge disposition and mortality (3% vs 0%). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in outcomes of surgeries between admission through TP vs MP. The focus should be on the patient's health condition and on prompt surgical intervention.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Isolated hip fractures are a common orthopedic injury in the elderly population. Estimates are that there will be over 21 million hip fractures globally by 2050. Current recommendations are early operative fixation within 48 hours. Despite evidence showing that fixation of hip fractures within 24 hours is beneficial in the elderly population, the effect this has on the nonagenarian population has yet to be examined. METHODS: This is a single institution retrospective cohort study examining isolated hip fractures from 2014 to 2020 from an American College of Surgeons verified trauma center. Patients ≥65 years old with IHF were included. A total number of 1150 isolated hip fracture patients 65 years or older were included in this study. Three cohorts were examined: (1) patients ≥90 years old; (2) patients 65-89 years old; and (3) patients stratified by ≥90 vs 65-75 years old and ≥90 vs 75-89 years old. Patients were then sub stratified by timing of surgery whether it was performed ≤24 hours or >24 hours. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Nonagenarians who had delayed surgery had higher mortality rates compared to nonagenarians with early surgery (15.2% vs 4.2%; P = .02). Patients aged 65-75 had higher complication rates with delayed surgery (12.9% vs 4.1%; P = .01) as did those aged 76-89 (9.0% vs 3.2%, P = .004). DISCUSSION: Early surgical intervention of isolated hip fractures in the nonagenarian population within 24 hours is associated with good clinical outcomes as well as a lower inpatient mortality that approaches significance.

Asunto(s)

Fracturas de Cadera , Nonagenarios , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Humanos , Anciano , Estudios Retrospectivos , Fracturas de Cadera/cirugía , Fracturas de Cadera/etiología , Hospitalización , Fijación Interna de Fracturas/efectos adversos

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Isolated hip fractures (IHFs) are a cause of morbidity and mortality in the geriatric population aged >65 years. Frailty has been identified as a determinant for patient outcomes in other surgical specialties. The purpose of this study is to determine if frailty severity is a predictor of outcomes in IHF in the geriatric population. METHODS: This is a retrospective study in a state and ACS Level 2 trauma center. Patients with IHF were reviewed between January 2018 and January 2020. Primary outcome was in-patient mortality. Secondary outcomes include perioperative outcome measures such as UTI, HCAP, DVT, readmission, length of stay, ICU length of stay, nutritional status, and discharge destination. Patients were stratified into mild (1-2), moderate (3-5), and severe (5-7) frailty using the Rockwood Frailty Score (RFS). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 470 patients with IHF who were stratified by mild (N=316), moderate (N-123), and severe (N=31) frailty. Frailty worsened with increasing age (P < .0001). Those who were less frail were more likely discharged home (P < .04). Severely frail patients were more likely discharged to hospice (P < .01). Severely frail patients also were more likely to develop DVT (P < .04) and have poorer nutritional status (P < .02). There were no differences among groups for in-patient mortality. CONCLUSION: Severely frail patients are more likely to be malnourished at baseline and be discharged to hospice care. The RFS is a reliable objective tool to identify high-risk patients and guide goals of care discussion for operative intervention in isolated traumatic hip fractures.

Asunto(s)

Fragilidad , Fracturas de Cadera , Humanos , Anciano , Fragilidad/complicaciones , Fragilidad/epidemiología , Anciano Frágil , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Fracturas de Cadera/cirugía , Evaluación Geriátrica , Tiempo de Internación

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To assess whether the definition of an IHF used as an exclusion criterion influences the results of trauma center benchmarking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study with data from an integrated Canadian trauma system. The study population included all patients admitted between 1999 and 2010 to any of the 57 adult trauma centers. Seven definitions of IHF based on diagnostic codes, age, mechanism of injury, and secondary injuries, identified in a systematic review, were used. Trauma centers were benchmarked using risk-adjusted mortality estimates generated using the Trauma Risk Adjustment Model. The agreement between benchmarking results generated under different IHF definitions was evaluated with correlation coefficients on adjusted mortality estimates. Correlation coefficients >0.95 were considered to convey acceptable agreement. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 172,872 patients before exclusion of IHF and between 128,094 and 139,588 patients after exclusion. Correlation coefficients between risk-adjusted mortality estimates generated in populations including and excluding IHF varied between 0.86 and 0.90. Correlation coefficients of estimates generated under different definitions of IHF varied between 0.97 and 0.99, even when analyses were restricted to patients aged ≥65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although the exclusion of patients with IHF has an influence on the results of trauma center benchmarking based on mortality, the definition of IHF in terms of diagnostic codes, age, mechanism of injury and secondary injury has no significant impact on benchmarking results. Results suggest that there is no need to obtain formal consensus on the definition of IHF for benchmarking activities.

Asunto(s)

Benchmarking , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Fracturas de Cadera/diagnóstico , Mortalidad Hospitalaria/tendencias , Centros Traumatológicos , Triaje/normas , Adolescente , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Canadá/epidemiología , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/normas , Femenino , Fracturas de Cadera/clasificación , Fracturas de Cadera/mortalidad , Humanos , Puntaje de Gravedad del Traumatismo , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Sistema de Registros , Estudios Retrospectivos , Centros Traumatológicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Índices de Gravedad del Trauma , Adulto Joven

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Risk-adjusted mortality is widely used to benchmark trauma center care. Patients presenting with isolated hip fractures (IHFs) are usually excluded from these evaluations. However, there is no standardized definition of an IHF. We aimed to evaluate whether there is consensus on the definition of an IHF used as an exclusion criterion in studies evaluating the performance of trauma centers in terms of mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of observational studies. We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, TRIP Database, and PROQUEST for cohort studies that presented data on mortality to assess the performance of trauma centers and excluded IHF. A standardized, piloted data abstraction form was used to extract data on study settings, IHF definitions and methodological quality of included studies. Consensus was considered to be reached if more than 50% of studies used the same definition of IHF. RESULTS: We identified 8,506 studies of which 11 were eligible for inclusion. Only two studies (18%) used the same definition of an IHF. Three (27%) used a definition based on Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) Codes and five (45%) on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Four (36%) studies had inclusion criteria based on age, five (45%) on secondary injuries, and four (36%) on the mechanism of injury. Eight studies (73%) had good overall methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: We observed important heterogeneity in the definition of an IHF used as an exclusion criterion in studies evaluating the performance of trauma centers. Consensus on a standardized definition is needed to improve the validity of evaluations of the quality of trauma care.