Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo

Factors Associated With Revision Surgery After Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. METHODS: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. RESULTS: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (for every 5-point increase) (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.39; P = 0.027), displaced fracture (HR 2.16, 95% CI 1.44-3.23; P < 0.001), unacceptable quality of implant placement (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.59-4.55; P < 0.001), and smokers treated with cancellous screws versus smokers treated with a sliding hip screw (HR 2.94, 95% CI 1.35-6.25; P = 0.006). Additionally, for every 10-year decrease in age, participants experienced an average increased risk of 39% for hardware removal. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study may inform future research by identifying high-risk patients who may be better treated with arthroplasty and may benefit from adjuncts to care (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.05-1.85; P = 0.020). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

A Machine Learning Algorithm to Identify Patients at Risk of Unplanned Subsequent Surgery After Intramedullary Nailing for Tibial Shaft Fractures

Objectives: In the SPRINT trial, 18% of patients with a tibial shaft fracture (TSF) treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) had one or more unplanned subsequent surgical procedures. It is clinically relevant for surgeon and patient to anticipate unplanned secondary procedures, other than operations that can be readily expected such as reconstructive procedures for soft tissue defects. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop a machine learning (ML) prediction model using the SPRINT data that can give individual patients and their care team an estimate of their particular probability of an unplanned second surgery. Methods: Patients from the SPRINT trial with unilateral TSFs were randomly divided into a training set (80%) and test set (20%). Five ML algorithms were trained in recognizing patterns associated with subsequent surgery in the training set based on a subset of variables identified by random forest algorithms. Performance of each ML algorithm was evaluated and compared based on (1) area under the ROC curve, (2) calibration slope and intercept, and (3) the Brier score. Results: Total data set comprised 1198 patients, of whom 214 patients (18%) underwent subsequent surgery. Seven variables were used to train ML algorithms: (1) Gustilo-Anderson classification, (2) Tscherne classification, (3) fracture location, (4) fracture gap, (5) polytrauma, (6) injury mechanism, and (7) OTA/AO classification. The best-performing ML algorithm had an area under the ROC curve, calibration slope, calibration intercept, and the Brier score of 0.766, 0.954, -0.002, and 0.120 in the training set and 0.773, 0.922, 0, and 0.119 in the test set, respectively. Conclusions: An ML algorithm was developed to predict the probability of subsequent surgery after IMN for TSFs. This ML algorithm may assist surgeons to inform patients about the probability of subsequent surgery and might help to identify patients who need a different perioperative plan or a more intensive approach.Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Rehabilitatio

Fracture fixation in the operative management of hip fractures (FAITH): an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes. Methods For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813. Findings Between Mar