The risk not to regain prefracture mobility is highest in mobile patients without an aid. The risk of becoming immobile is higher in those having a lower prefracture mobility. Activities of daily living dependence and delirium were the main risk factors for not regaining mobility.

Background: It is unclear whether cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty is the best treatment option in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Previous randomized trials comparing cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty have conflicting results. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty.

Background and purpose — In the Netherlands about 40% of hip fractures are treated with a hemiarthroplasty (HA) or a total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although these procedures are claimed to have fewer complications than osteosynthesis (i.e., reoperation), complications still occur. Analyses of data from national registries with adequate completeness of revision surgery are important to establish guidelines to diminish the risk for revision. We identified risk factors for revision.Patients and methods — All patients older than 50 years of age with a hip fracture treated with arthroplasty by orthopedic surgeons and registered in the (national) Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI) were included in the study. In this register, patient characteristics and surgical details were prospectively collected. Revision surgery and reasons for revision were evaluated. A proportional hazard ratio model for revision was created using competing risk analysis (with death as competing risk).Results — 1-year revision rate of HA was (cumulative incidence function [CIF] 1.6% (95% CI 1.4–1.8) and THA 2.4% (CI 2.0–2.7). Dislocation was the most common reason for revision in both groups (HA 29%, THA 41%). Male sex, age under 80 years, posterolateral approach, and uncemented stem fixation were risk factors for revision in both THA and HA. THA patients with ASA classification III/IV were revised more often, whereas revision in the HA cohort was performed more often in ASA I/II patients.Interpretation — After arthroplasty of hip fractures, both a posterolateral approach and an uncemented hip stem have higher risks for revision surgery compared with an anterolateral approach and an cemented stem.

Both PCS and MCS HRQoL declined after a hip fracture and PCS did not recover to baseline values. Healthier patients may need extra care to prevent them from having a steep decline in postoperative PCS HRQoL and arthroplasty should be considered with low threshold.

BackgroundDelirium in patients with hip fractures lead to higher morbidity and mortality. Prevention in high-risk patients by prescribing low dose haloperidol is currently under investigation.MethodsThis prospective cohort surveillance assessed hip fracture patients for risk of developing a delirium with the Risk Model for Delirium (RD) score. High-risk patients (score ≥ 5 points) were treated with a prophylactic low-dose of haloperidol according to hospital protocol. Primary outcome was delirium incidence. Secondary outcomes were differences between high- and low-risk patients in delirium, length of stay (LOS), return to pre-fracture living situation and mortality. Logistic regression analysis was performed with age, ASA-classification, known dementia, having a partner, type of fracture, institutional residence and psychotropic drug use as possible confounders.Results445 hip fracture patients aged 65 years and older were admitted from January 2008 to December 2009. The RD-score was completed in 378 patients, 173 (45.8%) high-risk patients were treated with prophylactic medication. Sensitivity was 71.6%, specificity 63.8% and the negative predictive value (NPV) of a score < 5 was 85.9%.Delirium incidence (27.0%) was not significantly different compared to 2007 (27.8%) 2006 (23.9%) and 2005 (29.0%) prior to implementation of the RD- protocol.Logistic regression analysis showed that high-risk patients did have a significant higher delirium incidence (42.2% vs. 14.1%, OR 4.1, CI 2.43-7.02). They were more likely to be residing at an alternative living situation after 3 months (62.3% vs. 17.0%, OR 6.57, CI 3.23-13.37) and less likely to be discharged from hospital before 10 days (34.9% vs. 55.9%, OR 1.63, CI 1.03-2.59). Significant independent risk factors for a delirium were a RD-score ≥ 5 (OR 4.13, CI 2.43-7.02), male gender (OR 1.93, CI 0.99-1.07) and age (OR 1.03, CI 0.99-1.07).ConclusionsIntroducing the delirium prevention protocol did not reduce delirium incidence.The RD-score did identify patients with a high risk to develop a delirium. This high-risk group had a longer LOS and returned to pre-fracture living situation less often.The NPV of a score < 5 was high, as it should be for a screening instrument. Concluding, the RD-score is a useful tool to identify patients with poorer outcome.