Dataset Information

The Impact of Prior Fragility Fractures on Complications After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The impact of prior fragility fractures and osteoporosis treatment before total hip arthroplasty (THA) on postoperative complications is unclear. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effect of prior fragility fractures and preoperative osteoporosis treatment on short-term complications and secondary fragility fractures after THA.

Methods

A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study was conducted using a commercially available database to (1) characterize the impact of prior fragility fractures on rates of short-term complications after THA and (2) evaluate if osteoporosis treatment before arthroplasty reduces risk of postoperative complications. Rates of periprosthetic fracture, revision THA, and fragility fractures were compared via multivariable logistic regression.

Results

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 2188 patients were assigned to each cohort. Patients with a fragility fracture in the 3 years preceding THA were more likely to sustain a periprosthetic fracture (1 year: 1.7% vs 1.0%, odds ratio [OR] 1.89; 2 years: 2.1% vs 1.1%, OR 1.82), fragility fracture (1 year: 4.7% vs 1.1%, OR 3.59; 2 years: 6.7% vs 1.7%, OR 3.21), and revision THA (1 year: 2.7% vs 1.7%, OR 1.65; 2 years: 3.1% vs 1.9%, OR 1.58). Among patients with a prior fragility fracture, only 13.8% received osteoporosis pharmacotherapy before THA. Rates of all complications were statistically comparable postoperatively for patients with and without pre-THA osteoporosis treatment.

Conclusions

Fragility fractures within 3 years before THA are associated with significantly increased risk of periprosthetic fracture, all-cause revision, and secondary fragility fractures postoperatively. Preoperative osteoporosis treatment may not decrease risk of postoperative complications.

SUBMITTER: Ross AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8379644 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInpatient rehabilitation is an expensive option following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We aimed to determine if THA patients who receive inpatient rehabilitation report better hip and quality of life scores post-surgery compared to those discharged directly home.MethodsProspective, propensity score matched cohort involving 12 private hospitals across five Australian States. Patients undergoing THA secondary to osteoarthritis were included. Those receiving inpatient rehabilitation for reasons other than choice or who experienced significant health events within 90-days post-surgery were excluded. Comparisons were made between those who did and did not receive inpatient rehabilitation for patient-reported hip pain and function (Oxford Hip Score, OHS) and 'today' health rating (EuroQol 0-100 scale). Rehabilitation provider charges were also estimated and compared.ResultsTwo hundred forty-six patients (123 pairs, mean age 67 (10) yr., 66% female) were matched on 19 covariates for their propensity to receive inpatient rehabilitation. No statistically nor clinically significant between-group differences were observed [OHS median difference (IQR): 0 (- 3, 3), P = 0.60; 0 (- 1 to 1), P = 0.91, at 90 and 365-days, respectively; EuroQol scale median difference 0 (- 10, 12), P = 0.24; 0 (- 10, 10), P = 0.49; 5 (- 10, 15), P = 0.09, at 35-, 90- and 365-days, respectively]. Median rehabilitation provider charges were 10-fold higher for those who received inpatient rehabilitation [median difference $7582 (5649, 10,249), P < 0.001]. Sensitivity analyses corroborated the results of the primary analyses.ConclusionUtilization of inpatient rehabilitation pathways following THA appears to be low value healthcare. Sustainability of inpatient rehabilitation models may be enhanced if inpatient rehabilitation is reserved for those most impaired or who have limited social supports.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899443 .

Project description:PurposeLower limb alignment is crucial in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Previous studies have shown that robotics and personalized three-dimensional (3D) preoperative planning could improve postoperative alignment accuracy compared with conventional TKA, but comparison between the above two techniques has never been reported. The authors hypothesized that robotics may be superior to personalized 3D preoperative planning in terms of postoperative alignment in primary TKA, with similar patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) but higher cost and longer operative time.MethodsA consecutive series of patients who received TKA in our center from September 2020 to January 2021 were enrolled retrospectively. After 1:2 matching, 52 and 104 patients were included and divided into study group for robotics and control group for personalized 3D preoperative planning, respectively. Multiple postoperative alignment angles were measured, and clinical features such as operation and tourniquet time, length of hospital stay and hemoglobin (Hb) were recorded. Knee Society Score (KSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were used to evaluate clinical results.ResultsCompared with control group, robotics group had significantly lower frontal femoral component angle (FFC) and frontal tibial component angle (FTC) absolute deviation (P < 0.05). It also had less outliers in hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), FTC, lateral femoral component angle (LFC) and lateral tibial component angle (LTC) (P < 0.05). Hb loss of robotics group was significantly lower than control group (P < 0.001), while the operation and tourniquet time were longer (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in KSS and WOMAC scores between two groups.ConclusionCompared with control group, patients in robotics group had significantly less malalignment, malposition, Hb loss, but similar PROMs. The operations in robotics group spent longer operation time and cost more compared with control group.Trial registrationThe Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000036235. Registered 22 August 2020, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=59300 .Level of evidenceIII.