Aims Current guidelines recommend surgery within 48 hours among patients presenting with hip fractures; however, optimal surgical timing for patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) remains unclear. Individual studies are limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneous outcomes. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effect of pre-injury OACs on time-to-surgery (TTS) and all-cause mortality among older adults with hip fracture treated surgically. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to 14 October 2019 to identify studies directly comparing outcomes among hip fracture patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) prior to hospital admission to hip fracture patients not on OACs. Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool all outcomes (TTS, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day mortality). Results A total of 34 studies (involving 39,446 patients) were included in our systematic review. TTS was 13.7 hours longer (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.8 to 17.5; p < 0.001) among hip fracture patients on OACs compared to those not on OACs. This translated to a three-fold higher odds of having surgery beyond the recommended 48 hours from admission (odds ratio (OR) 3.0 (95% CI 2.1 to 4.3); p = 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher (OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.8); p < 0.03) among anticoagulated patients. Among studies comparing anticoagulants, there was no statistically significant difference in time-to-surgery between patients taking a DOAC compared to a VKA. Conclusion Patients presenting with a hip fracture who were taking OACs prior to injury experience a delay in time-to-surgery and higher mortality than non-anticoagulated patients. Patients on DOACs may be at risk of further delays. Evaluating expedited surgical protocols in hip fracture patients on OACs is an urgent priority, with the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality in this group of high-risk patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):222–233.

No abstract

Background: Hip fracture patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) experience increased time-to-surgery and higher mortality compared to non-anticoagulated patients. However, it is unclear whether pre-injury OAC status and its associated operative delay are associated with worsening of peri-operative hemostasis or an increased risk of postoperative thromboembolism. Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify studies that directly compared hemostatic and thromboembolic outcomes among hip fracture patients on an OAC prior to admission with those not on anticoagulants. Random effects metaanalyses were used to pool all outcomes of interest (estimated blood loss, transfusion requirements, and postoperative thromboembolism). Results: Twenty-one studies involving 21 417 patients were included. Estimated blood loss was higher among patients presenting with OACs compared to those not anticoagulated (mean difference 31.0 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-55.7). Anticoagulated patients also had a 1.3-fold higher risk of receiving red blood cell transfusions (odds ratio [OR] 1.34, 95% CI 1.20-1.51); however, rates of postoperative thromboembolism were similar regardless of anticoagulation status (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.40-2.79 for venous thromboembolism; OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25-1.36 for arterial thromboembolism). No subgroup effect was found based on anticoagulant type or degree of surgical delay. Conclusion: Hip fracture patients on OACs experience increased surgical blood loss and higher risk of red blood cell transfusions. However, the degree of surgical delay did not mitigate this risk, and there was no difference in postoperative thromboembolism. The impact of appropriate, timely OAC reversal on blood conservation and expedited surgery in anticoagulated hip fracture patients warrants urgent evaluation. | 2567 XU et al.

Background: Temporal artery biopsies (TAB) rarely impact management of patients with suspected giant cell arteritis and carry complications. We sought plastic surgeons’ perspectives on this procedure’s risks and benefits. Methods: An email survey was designed, piloted, and refined to elicit Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons (CSPS) members about TAB’s diagnostic contribution, complications, usefulness as a resident education tool, and surgeons’ insight into emerging diagnostic modalities like ultrasound. Text comments were sought at each question. A reminder was emailed one week later. Data was compared and analyzed using the chi-squared test and student t-test. Results: An estimated 83 responses were received from 435 surgeons (19%). Of the surgeons, 20% voiced uncertainty regarding TAB indications; 40% were unsure if TAB results changed steroid duration and dose; 83% did not see patients postoperatively. Surgeons recalled 29 cases of hematoma and three facial nerve injuries from TAB. In total, 80% felt TAB was a valuable learning opportunity for residents, although residents were involved in only 21% of cases; 65% of surgeons supported a changeover to ultrasound as primary diagnostic modality. Analysis of text comments revealed a sense of futility from TAB and disdain toward being mere technicians. Several participants wished for stakeholders to collaborate and potentially endorse noninvasive diagnostic modalities. Conclusions: This survey demonstrated varying attitudes to TAB. Generally, plastic surgeons were uncertain of TAB’s contribution to treatment, tended not to follow-up on results or patients, and recognized a number of complications. Conversations are desired regarding switching from scalpel to probe to evaluate the temporal artery.