Jones Conor S, Eardley William G P, Johansen Antony, Inman Dominic S, Evans Jonathan T
Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Bone Jt Open. 2023 May 23;4(5):378-384. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.45.BJO-2023-0011.R1.
The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement.
This work used data freely available from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) facilities survey in 2021, which asked 21 questions about the care of patients with PPFFs, and nine relating to clinical decision-making around a hypothetical case.
Of 174 centres contributing data to the NHFD, 161 provided full responses and 139 submitted data on PPFF. Lack of resources was cited as the main reason for not submitting data. Surgeon (44.6%) and theatre (29.7%) availability were reported as the primary reasons for surgical delay beyond 36 hours. Less than half had a formal process for a specialist surgeon to operate on PPFF at least every other day. The median number of specialist surgeons at each centre was four (interquartile range (IQR) 3 to 6) for PPFF around both hips and knees. Around one-third of centres reported having one dedicated theatre list per week. The routine discussion of patients with PPFF at local and regional multidisciplinary team meetings was lower than that for all-cause revision arthroplasties. Six centres reported transferring all patients with PPFF around a hip joint to another centre for surgery, and this was an occasional practice for a further 34. The management of the hypothetical clinical scenario was varied, with 75 centres proposing ORIF, 35 suggested revision surgery and 48 proposed a combination of both revision and fixation.
There is considerable variation in both the organization of PPFF services England and Wales, and in the approach taken to an individual case. The rising incidence of PPFF and complexity of these patients highlight the need for pathway development. The adoption of networks may reduce variability and improve outcomes for patients with PPFF.
本研究旨在描述英格兰和威尔士为假体周围股骨骨折(PPFF)患者提供的服务,重点关注各中心之间的差异以及有待改善护理的领域。
本研究使用了2021年国家髋部骨折数据库(NHFD)设施调查中免费获取的数据,该调查询问了21个关于PPFF患者护理的问题,以及9个与一个假设病例的临床决策相关的问题。
在向NHFD提供数据的174个中心中,161个提供了完整回复,139个提交了PPFF数据。未提交数据的主要原因是资源匮乏。据报告,外科医生(44.6%)和手术室(29.7%)的可用性是手术延迟超过36小时的主要原因。不到一半的中心有正式程序,让专科外科医生至少每隔一天为PPFF患者进行手术。对于双侧髋部和膝部的PPFF,每个中心专科外科医生的中位数为4名(四分位间距(IQR)为3至6名)。约三分之一的中心报告每周有一个专门的手术室安排。PPFF患者在当地和区域多学科团队会议上的常规讨论低于全因翻修关节成形术。6个中心报告将所有髋关节周围PPFF患者转诊至另一中心进行手术,另有34个中心偶尔这样做。对假设临床病例的处理方式各不相同,75个中心建议进行切开复位内固定术(ORIF),35个建议进行翻修手术,48个建议翻修与固定相结合。
在英格兰和威尔士,PPFF服务的组织以及对个别病例的处理方法存在相当大的差异。PPFF发病率的上升以及这些患者的复杂性凸显了制定治疗路径的必要性。采用网络可能会减少变异性并改善PPFF患者的治疗结果。