Amir Khoshbin1, Amit Atrey1, Hasaan Chaudhry1, Lauren Nowak1, Luana T Melo1, Alexandra Stavrakis2, Emil H Schemitsch3,4, Aaron Nauth1. 1. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, St Michaels Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. 3. London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, London, ON, Canada; and. 4. University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Compare acute complication and mortality rates of geriatric patients with acetabular fractures (AFs) matched to hip fractures (HFs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. PATIENTS: Using Current Procedural Terminology codes, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project registry was used to identify all patients ≥60 years from 2011 to 2016 treated for AFs undergoing open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and HFs (undergoing ORIF, hemiarthroplasty, or cephalomedullary nail). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Patient characteristics, comorbidities, functional status, acute complications, and mortality rates were recorded. Patients were matched 1:5 (AF:HF). Chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare groups, and multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the risk of complications or death while adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: A total of 303 AF patients (age: 78.2 ± 9.2 years/59.7% females/27.1% wall, 28.4% one column and 45.2% 2 columns ORIF) were matched to 1511 HF patients (age: 78.3 ± 9.1 years/60.2% females/37.2% hemiarthroplasty, 16.3% ORIF and 47.4% cephalomedullary nail). Length of stay (8.4 ± 7.1 vs. 6.4 ± 5.9 days) and time to surgery [(TS) 2.3 ± 1.8 versus 1.2 ± 1.4 days] were longer in the AF group (P < 0.01). Unadjusted mortality rates were nonsignificantly higher for AFs versus HFs (6.6% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.14). After covariable adjustment, the risk of mortality was significantly higher for AFs versus HFs (odds ratio: 1.89, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-3.35). CONCLUSION: Geriatric AFs pose a significantly higher adjusted mortality risk when compared with HF patients. Strategies to mitigate risk factors in this population are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
OBJECTIVES: Compare acute complication and mortality rates of geriatric patients with acetabular fractures (AFs) matched to hip fractures (HFs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. PATIENTS: Using Current Procedural Terminology codes, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project registry was used to identify all patients ≥60 years from 2011 to 2016 treated for AFs undergoing open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and HFs (undergoing ORIF, hemiarthroplasty, or cephalomedullary nail). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Patient characteristics, comorbidities, functional status, acute complications, and mortality rates were recorded. Patients were matched 1:5 (AF:HF). Chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare groups, and multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the risk of complications or death while adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: A total of 303 AFpatients (age: 78.2 ± 9.2 years/59.7% females/27.1% wall, 28.4% one column and 45.2% 2 columns ORIF) were matched to 1511 HF patients (age: 78.3 ± 9.1 years/60.2% females/37.2% hemiarthroplasty, 16.3% ORIF and 47.4% cephalomedullary nail). Length of stay (8.4 ± 7.1 vs. 6.4 ± 5.9 days) and time to surgery [(TS) 2.3 ± 1.8 versus 1.2 ± 1.4 days] were longer in the AF group (P < 0.01). Unadjusted mortality rates were nonsignificantly higher for AFs versus HFs (6.6% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.14). After covariable adjustment, the risk of mortality was significantly higher for AFs versus HFs (odds ratio: 1.89, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-3.35). CONCLUSION: Geriatric AFs pose a significantly higher adjusted mortality risk when compared with HF patients. Strategies to mitigate risk factors in this population are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.