A NATIONWIDE MULTICENTRE STUDY EVALUATING THE PREVALENCE, CASEMIX, AND MANAGEMENT OF PERIPROSTHETIC FEMUR FRACTURES: THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL AUDIT OF PERIPROSTHETIC FEMUR FRACTURES (SNAP FEMUR) INITIAL REPORT

Le résumé fourni par la source

Periprosthetic femur fracture (PPF) are heterogeneous, complex, and thought to be increasingly prevalent. The aims were to evaluate PPF prevalence, casemix, management, and outcomes. This nationwide study included all PPF patients aged >50 years from 16 Scottish hospitals in 2019. Variables included: demographics; implant and fracture factors; management factors, and outcomes. There were 332 patients, mean age 79.5 years, and 220/332 (66.3%) were female. One-third (37.3%) were ASA1-2 and two-thirds (62.3%) were ASA3+, 91.0% were from home/sheltered housing, and median Clinical Frailty Score was 4.0 (IQR 3.0). Acute medical issues featured in 87/332 (26.2%) and 19/332 (5.7%) had associated injuries. There were 251/332 (75.6%) associated with a proximal femoral implant, of which 232/251 (92.4%) were arthroplasty devices (194/251 [77.3%] total hip, 35/251 [13.9%] hemiarthroplasty, 3/251 [1.2%] resurfacing). There were 81/332 (24.4%) associated with a distal femoral implant (76/81 [93.8%] were total knee arthroplasties). In 38/332 (11.4%) there were implants proximally and distally. Most patients (268/332; 80.7%) were treated surgically, with 174/268 (64.9%) requiring fixation only and 104/268 (38.8%) requiring an arthroplasty or combined solution. Median time to theatre was longer for arthroplasty versus fixation procedures (120 vs 46 hours), and those requiring inter-hospital transfer waited longer (94 vs 48 hours). Barriers to investigating PPF include varied classification, coding challenges, and limitations of existing registries. This is the first study to examine a national PPF cohort and presents important data to guide service design and research. Additional findings relating to fracture patterns, implant types, surgeon skill-mix, and outcomes are reported herein.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.