BackgroundAlthough economic stability, social context, and healthcare access are well-known social determinants of health associated with more challenging recovery after traumatic injury, little is known about how these factors differ by mechanism of injury. Our team sought to use the results of social determinants of health screenings to better understand the population that engaged with psychosocial support services after traumatic musculoskeletal injury and fill a gap in our understanding of patient-reported social health needs.Question/purposeWhat is the relationship between social determinants of health and traumatic musculoskeletal injury?MethodsTrauma recovery services is a psychosocial support program at our institution that offers patients and their family members resources such as professional coaching, peer mentorship, post-traumatic stress disorder screening and treatment, educational resources, and more. This team engages with any patient admitted to, treated at, and released from our institution. Their primary engagement population is individuals with traumatic injury, although not exclusively. Between January 2019 and October 2021, the trauma recovery services team interacted with 6036 patients. Of those who engaged with this service, we considered only patients who experienced a traumatic musculoskeletal injury and had a completed social determinants of health screening tool. During the stated timeframe, 13% (814 of 6036) of patients engaged with trauma recovery services and had a complete social determinants of health screening tool. Of these, 53% (428 of 814) had no physical injury. A further 26% (99 of 386) were excluded because they did not have traumatic musculoskeletal injuries, leaving 4.8% (287) for analysis in this cross-sectional study. The study population included patients who interacted with trauma recovery services at our institution after a traumatic orthopaedic injury that occurred between January 2019 and October 2021. Social determinants of health risk screening questionnaires were self-administered prospectively using a screening tool developed by our institution based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services social determinants of health screening questions. Mechanisms of injury were separated into intentional (physical assault, sexual assault, gunshot wound, or stabbing) and unintentional (fall, motor vehicle collision, or motorcycle crash). During the study period, 287 adult patients interacted with trauma recovery services after a traumatic musculoskeletal injury and had complete social determinant of health screening; 123 injuries were unintentional and 164 were intentional. Patients were primarily women (55% [159 of 287]), single (73% [209 of 287]), and insured by Medicaid or Medicare (78% [225 of 287]). Mechanism category was determined after a thorough medical record review to verify the appropriate category. An initial exploratory univariate analysis was completed for the primary outcome variable using the Pearson chi-squared test for categorical variables a...

Objective: Comparing outcomes of periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus distal femoral replacement (DFR). Setting: Three major academic hospitals within one metropolitan area. Design: Retrospective. Patients/Participants: Three hundred seventy patients >64 years old with periprosthetic distal femur fractures were identified and 115 were included (65 ORIF vs. 50 DFR). Intervention: ORIF with locked plating versus DFR. Main Outcome Measurement: One-year mortality, ambulatory status at 1 year, reoperations, and hospital readmissions. Results: No differences were observed between ORIF and DFR cohorts regarding demographics or medical history, including Charleston Comorbidity Index. DFR was associated with longer hospital stay (6.09 days ORIF vs. 9.08 days DFR, P < 0.001) and more frequent blood transfusion (12.3% ORIF vs. 44.0% DFR, P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis using propensity score matching (PSM) demonstrated no statistically significant difference in reoperation, hospital readmission, ambulatory status at 1 year, or 1-year mortality between the 2 cohorts. Finally, applying Bayesian model averaging using PSM to identify risk factors for 1-year mortality demonstrated that increasing age, length of index hospital stay, and 90-day hospital readmission were significantly associated with 1-year mortality, regardless of type of surgical treatment. Conclusion: Rehospitalization, reoperation, ambulatory status, and 1-year mortality are no different between ORIF and DFR in the treatment of geriatric periprosthetic distal femur fractures when PSM is applied to mitigate selection bias. Further study is warranted to elucidate functional outcomes, long-term sequelae, and costs of care related to these treatment options to better guide treatment planning. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.