Risk factors for symptomatic retears after arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears

Background: Factors affecting a rotator cuff symptomatic retear after arthroscopic repair have yet to be clearly identified, since they usually influence the surgical decisions. Methods: Consecutive patients with full-thickness tear of the supraspinatus who underwent arthroscopic repair were retrospectively analyzed. Cases of symptomatic retear, defined as Sugaya type IV and V on magnetic resonance imaging, associated with intensive pain and/or functional impairment were identified at follow-up. The patients with no symptomatic retear were selected as the control group. Information from potential risk factors of symptomatic retear, including depression and subacromial corticosteroid injections, was extracted from the medical records. The statistical analysis included multivariant logistic regression. Results: The symptomatic retear rate was 9.5% in 158 patients. Patients in the symptomatic retear group were more likely to be smoking, to have massive tears, a short acromiohumeral distance, and moderate to severe fatty infiltration. They also had had more frequently subacromial corticosteroid injections and depression. However, following the multiple logistic regression analysis, only massive tears and moderate to severe fatty infiltration remained significantly associated. Similarly, in relation to the study hypothesis, both corticosteroid injections (odds ratio [OR] 6.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49, 29.81; P =.013) and depression (OR 8.26, IC 1.04, 65.62; P =.046) were significantly associated with symptomatic retear risk. Conclusions: This study found support for the hypothesis that both depression and corticosteroid infiltration before surgery are independent risk factors for symptomatic retear after arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff

Is it really advantageous to operate proximal femoral fractures within 48 h from diagnosis? – A multicentric retrospective study exploiting COVID pandemic-related delays in time to surgery

Objectives: Hip fractures in the elderly are common injuries that need timely surgical management. Since the beginning of the pandemic, patients with a proximal femoral fracture (PFF) experienced a delay in time to surgery. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate a possible variation in mortality in patients with PFF when comparing COVID-19 negative versus positive. Methods: This is a multicentric and retrospective study including 3232 patients with PFF who underwent surgical management. The variables taken into account were age, gender, the time elapsed between arrival at the emergency room and intervention, pre-operative American Society of Anesthesiology score, pre-operative cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and 10-day/1-month/6-month mortality. For 2020, we had an additional column, “COVID-19 swab positivity.” Results: COVID-19 infection represents an independent mortality risk factor in patients with PFFs. Despite the delay in time-to-surgery occurring in 2020, no statistically significant variation in terms of mortality was detected. Within our sample, a statistically significant difference was not detected in terms of mortality at 6 months, in patients operated within and beyond 48 h, as well as no difference between those operated within or after 12/24/72 h. The mortality rate among subjects with PFF who tested positive for COVID-19 was statistically significantly higher than in patients with PFF who tested. COVID-19 positivity resulted in an independent factor for mortality after PFF. Conclusion: Despite the most recent literature recommending operating PFF patients as soon as possible, no significant difference in mortality was found among patients operated before or after 48 h from diagnosis

Accelerated surgery versus standard care in hip fracture (HIP ATTACK) : an international, randomised, controlled trial

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: HIP ATTACK was an international, randomised, controlled trial done at 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were aged 45 years or older were eligible. Research personnel randomly assigned patients (1:1) through a central computerised randomisation system using randomly varying block sizes to either accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 h of diagnosis) or standard care. The coprimary outcomes were mortality and a composite of major complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Patients, health-care providers, and study staff were aware of treatment assignment, but outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02027896). Findings: Between March 14, 2014, and May 24, 2019, 27 701 patients were screened, of whom 7780 were eligible. 2970 of these were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive accelerated surgery (n=1487) or standard care (n=1483). The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h (IQR 4\u20139) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 h (10\u201342) in the standard-care group (p<0\ub70001). 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0\ub791 (95% CI 0\ub772 to 1\ub714) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1% ( 121 to 3; p=0\ub740). Major complications occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care, with an HR of 0\ub797 (0\ub783 to 1\ub713) and an ARR of 1% ( 122 to 4; p=0\ub771). Interpretation: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared with standard care. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal