Summary 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 March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.63–1.09; p=0.18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1.91, 1.06–3.44; p=0.0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0.82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0.41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0.79). Interpretation In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws. Funding National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians’ Services Incorporated.

We report on the use of discrete event simulation modeling to support process improvements at an orthopedic outpatient clinic. The clinic was effective in treating patients, but waiting time and congestion in the clinic created patient dissatisfaction and staff morale issues. The modeling helped to identify improvement alternatives including optimized staffing levels, better patient scheduling, and an emphasis on staff arriving promptly. Quantitative results from the modeling provided motivation to implement the improvements. Statistical analysis of data taken before and after the implementation indicate that waiting time measures were significantly improved and overall patient time in the clinic was reduced.

Coronal plane fractures of the posterior femoral condyle, also known as Hoffa fractures, are rare. Lateral fractures are three times more common than medial fractures, although the reason for this is not clear. The exact mechanism of injury is likely to be a vertical shear force on the posterior femoral condyle with varying degrees of knee flexion. These fractures are commonly associated with high-energy trauma and are a diagnostic and surgical challenge. Hoffa fractures are often associated with inter- or supracondylar distal femoral fractures and CT scans are useful in delineating the coronal shear component, which can easily be missed. There are few recommendations in the literature regarding the surgical approach and methods of fixation that may be used for this injury. Non-operative treatment has been associated with poor outcomes. The goals of treatment are anatomical reduction of the articular surface with rigid, stable fixation to allow early mobilisation in order to restore function. A surgical approach that allows access to the posterior aspect of the femoral condyle is described and the use of postero-anterior lag screws with or without an additional buttress plate for fixation of these difficult fractures.

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims Dislocation is the most common indication for further surgery following total hip arthroplasty (THA) when undertaken in patients with a femoral neck fracture. This study aimed to assess the complication rates of THA with dual mobility components (THA-DMC) following a femoral neck fracture and to compare outcomes between THA-DMC, conventional THA, and hemiarthroplasty (HA). Methods We performed a systematic review of all English language articles on THA-DMC published between 2010 and 2019 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. After the application of rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 studies dealing with patients who underwent treatment for a femoral neck fracture using THA-DMC were analyzed for the rate of dislocation. Secondary outcomes included reoperation, periprosthetic fracture, infection, mortality, and functional outcome. The review included 7,189 patients with a mean age of 77.8 years (66.4 to 87.6) and a mean follow-up of 30.9 months (9.0 to 68.0). Results THA-DMC was associated with a significantly lower dislocation rate compared with both THA (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79) and HA (odds ratio (OR) 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.50). The rate of large articulations and of intraprosthetic dislocation was 1.5% (n = 105) and 0.04% (n = 3) respectively. Conclusion THA-DMC when used in patients with a femoral neck fracture is associated with a lower dislocation rate compared with conventional arthroplasty options. There was no increase in the rates of other complication when THA-DMC was used. Future cost analysis and prospective, comparative studies are required to assess the potential benefit of using THA-DMC in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):811–821.