Abstract
Purpose
Medial femoral neck fractures are typically managed with hemiarthroplasty (HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) in elderly patients. There is a debate as to which treatment predominates. The literatures have reported better outcomes for those patients with proximal femur fracture who were treated in an orthogeriatric centres compared to standard orthopaedic hospitals. Therefore, we have analysed the differences of outcome between HA and THA on patients, exclusively treated in orthogeriatric co-management and compared the results with the available literature.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective registry analysis of the Registry for Geriatric Trauma DGU®. Between 2016 and 2018, data for 16,236 patients from 78 different hospitals were available: they were analysed univariably, and differences between HA and THA were examined using propensity score matching, according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, Identification-of-Seniors-At-Risk (ISAR) Score, anticoagulation level, sex, age, and walking ability prefracture.
Results
There were 4,662 patients treated with HA and 892 with THA, meeting inclusion criteria. Patients in the HA group were older (84 years (IQR 80–89) vs. 79 years (IQR 75–83); p < 0.001), with more severe preexisting conditions, with an ASA grade ≥ 3 in 79% vs. 57% in the THA group (p < 0.001). After matching, the mortality rate, in-house revision rate, and quality of life (QoL) 7 days postoperatively were not significantly different by group. After 120 days, the HA group presented a lower rate of surgical complications (4% vs. 10%; p = 0.006), while the THA group had a higher rate of independent walking (18% vs. 28%; p = 0.001) and a higher QoL, measured by the EQ-5D-3L (0.81 (IQR 0.7–1.0) vs. 0.9 (IQR 0.72–1.0); p = 0.01).
Conclusions
Due to better walking ability and QoL, THA might be the better choice in healthier and more mobile patients, while HA would be better for multimorbid patients to avoid additional complication-associated treatments. Not the age of the patient but the preoperative condition might be important for the choice between THA and HA.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Multifactorial circumstances directly influence demographics around the world and are responsible for an increase in fractures of the elderly. Approximately 1.6 million annual incidences of proximal femur fractures occurred in 2000, manifesting the tremendous impact they have in the daily routine of traumatology clinics worldwide [1]. Estimations throughout the last couple of years have shown an increase of such fractures. Back in 1995, approximately 122/100,000 patients have suffered a coxal femur fracture, whilst in 2010, we were already able to observe an increase of such numbers to 157/100,000 [2,3,4].
The latest assumptions confirm there will not be a decline in these numbers in the next few years. By 2030, epidemiologists expect a prevalence increase of 40% [2]. Newly published literature expects that by 2050, we will see more incidence of over 6 million per year [5].
To achieve the best medical outcome for patients suffering from a medial femoral neck fracture (FNF), surgeons must consider various factors before treating it—given the question about which is the best way to treat FNF: hemiarthroplasty (HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA). An analysis of patient needs, lifestyle, walking ability, and preexisting diseases must be considered prior to surgery. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK recommends that patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade of three or less, who are able to walk independently (or with the help of a cane), and are not cognitively impaired, should be treated with a THA [6]. Several recent studies concluded that THA has an advantage in terms of mobility and quality of life (QoL) [7,8,9,10]. However, we will not neglect the fact that THA can contribute to higher risk of hip dislocation (relative risk 1.48) [11].
In addition to the surgical treatment, multiple other factors could influence the outcome after FNF in geriatric patients. This led to the development and establishment of orthogeriatric treatment concepts involving trauma surgeons and geriatricians.
In 2007, the German Trauma Society (DGU) started to establish orthogeriatric centres. Since 2014, an independent audit process certifies those treatment units as Centre for Geriatric Trauma DGU (ATZ-DGU).
Certified centres are obliged to treat the patients in an orthogeriatric co-management and to participate in the Registry for Geriatric Trauma DGU (ATR-DGU) [12, 13]. This led to an increased establishment of an orthogeriatric co-management in Germany, with actually more than 100 certified centres. Similar developments took place in many other countries in Western Europe. Data about the effect of orthogeriatric co-managed care of geriatric trauma patients are now available in increasing numbers and could show that orthogeriatric treatment leads to a better outcome and an improved survival rate in this often-frail collective [14,15,16,17,18,19].
In contrast to the current available literature, our study focused on the differences in outcome after treatment of FNF with THA or HA in geriatric patients, treated exclusively in an orthogeriatric co-management.
Methods
Data sources
All data were collected by the ATR-DGU. The ATR-DGU was founded in 2016 by DGU. The ATR-DGU gathers information about patients with a coxal femur fracture at the age of 70 years or older. Thus far, about 21,000 acute cases are registered with the ATR from approximately 100 certified geriatric trauma centres in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Data are collected in five consecutive phases: admission, preop, surgery, first postop week, and discharge/transfer. Furthermore, an optional follow-up can be scheduled for day 120 postoperatively. On days 7 and 120 postoperatively, health-related QoL is queried with the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Participation in the ATR-DGU is an obligation for hospitals successfully certified as an official ATZ-DGU. Approval for scientific data analysis from the ATR-DGU is granted via a peer-review procedure in accordance with publication guidelines of the Committee on Geriatric Trauma Registry of the DGU. This study is in accordance with publication guidelines of the ATR-DGU and registered under the ATR-DGU-ID 2019-007.
Patients
We included all patients who registered with the ATR-DGU from 2016 to 2018. This accounts for a total of 16,236 patients from 78 different hospitals, certified as an ATZ. All patients with different hip injuries other than FNF were excluded. Pathologic fractures of the hip, periprosthetic, and peri-implant hip fractures were also excluded, leaving 5554 patients. This cohort splits into 4,662 patients who were treated with HA and 892 patients with THA. Further, some patients had to be excluded from some analyses, due to missing data. Therefore, each analysis shows the total number of patients who could be included.
Outcomes
Outcome parameters were walking ability 120 days after fracture, surgery-associated complications during hospital admission or within 120 postoperative days, mortality during hospital admission and within 120 postoperative days, and QoL at 7 and 120 postoperative days, measured by the EQ-5D-3L.
Covariates
The following covariates were measured: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (1–5), Identification-of-Seniors-At-Risk (ISAR) Score, anticoagulation, sex, age, time-to-surgery, additional injuries, time-do-death in hospital, and actual period in hospital.
Statistical analysis
We conducted a retrospective analysis with the above data. All calculations were performed via statistics software R v. 3.5.3 (Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). For descriptive analyses, categorical data were presented as frequencies and compared by the χ2 test. Continuous variables were expressed by median and interquartile range (IQR) for group comparisons with the Mann–Whitney U test or Kruskal–Wallis test, as appropriate.
To verify outcomes of geriatric FNF and find superiority to one of two treatment methods (HA or THA), propensity score matching was done per ASA grade, ISAR Score, anticoagulation, sex, age, and walking ability before fracture. Only data which included all these matching criteria were analysed, resulting in 3372 cases for propensity score matching. Twice as many patients with HA were compared to those with THA [20]. Differences were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05.
Ethics
Written patient consent was obtained by participating hospitals. The data from the ATR-DGU received full approval from the Ethics Committee of the medical faculty of the Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany (AZ 46/16).
Results
A total of 5554 patients could be analysed in this study. This cohort was split into two collectives: 1 was treated with HA, with 4662 patients, and the other with THA, 892 patients. From those patients, the optional postoperative follow-up date up to 120 days was available only in 2509 cases, resulting in a lost on follow-up of 54.8%. Distribution between sexes was the same for both collectives, with 70% females. The median patient age in the HA group was 85 (IQR 80–89), whereas those in the THA were younger, with a median age of 79 (IQR 75–83) (p < 0.001).
Patients in the HA group were usually less healthy, having an ASA grade of three or more, accounting for 80% vs. 58% in the THA (p < 0.001). A similar result was found analysing the ISAR Score, with 85% vs. 58% of patients having a score of 2 or more at admission, representing the need for geriatric treatment (p < 0.001). HA was more often done during weekends or nationwide holidays (25% vs. 20%; p = 0.002) and during on-duty times (21% vs. 15%; p < 0.001). The univariable analysis presented is in Table 1.
In-house mortality was higher in the HA group (6% vs. 3%; p < 0.001) and post-surgery walking ability was better in the THA group (p < 0.001). Table 2 shows postoperative differences. Analysing optional follow-up 120 days postoperatively, a significantly better independent walking ability was found (p < 0.001) with all five dimensions of the EQ-5d-3L better in the THA group (p < 0.001). However, the rate of surgery associates complications was significantly higher in the THA group (4% vs. 8%; p = 0.002). The incidence of readmission rate was not statistically significant (5% in HA vs. 7% in THA; p = 0.219). Table 3 presents the differences 120 days postoperatively.
The percentage distribution of changes in walking ability can be seen in Fig. 1. A distinction was made between degradation, no change, and improvement in walking ability 120 days postoperatively, vs. preinjury status. There was no significant difference between HA and THA groups. To create comparable groups, we performed propensity score matching. No significant differences were seen between groups, according to these criteria, with a total of 1335 patients. Table 4 shows differences of included variables before and after matching.
After matching the two groups, in-house mortality (4% vs. 3%; p = 0.176) and mortality rate during 120 days postoperatively (5% vs. 3%; p = 0.540), were not statistically different. Independent walking without walking aids was achieved by 18% of the HA and 28% of the THA group 120 days postoperatively (p = 0.001). The distinction between degradation, no change, and improvement of walking ability 120 days postoperatively failed to reach significance.
For hospital admission, no difference was seen in the rate of surgery-associated complications (3% vs. 3%; p = 1), but 120 days postoperatively, HA patients presented a lower rate than THA patients (4% vs. 10%; p = 0.006). The most common treatment for surgery-associated complications was the reduction of the prosthesis after dislocation (0% vs. 35%). Comparing the EQ-5D-3L of both collectives 7 days postoperatively, there was no difference, while QoL 120 days was significantly higher in the THA group (0.81 vs. 0.9; p = 0.01). Table 5 shows these results after propensity matching.
Discussion
In this multicentre registry study, we found patients with HA were at significantly less risk of surgery-associated complications within 120 days, while there was a significant difference in walking ability and QoL, in favour of THA. We also show there was no difference in mortality within 120 days after operation. Due to the question about the best procedure to treat FNF in the elderly population, there are many publications on the issue, which leads to a highly ranked meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [21,22,23]. Comparing inclusion criteria or the number of the study population in these studies, our collective is unique. Most RCTs included patients younger than 70 years [24,25,26] or excluded those with dementia or care-dependency [9, 27, 28], and who were also not excluded in our analysis. Our results must be discussed, as we present a comparatively older and less healthy cohort. To our knowledge, no other study examined the outcome of patients after FNF with an ASA Score of 3 or more in 79% of the HA group, and a mean age of 85, respectively, or 58% and 79 years in the THA group [21,22,23].
As a key parameter in this population, we focused on mortality and complication rate. The overall in-house mortality came to 5% with a mortality rate of 6% for HA and 3% for THA (p < 0.001), with 11% vs. 6% (p = 0.003) on day 120 postoperatively, while significance was not verifiable after propensity score matching. Other studies reported no clear distinction in mortality between groups [21, 29]. Several factors may lead to a higher mortality rate in the HA group: patients were significantly older, had a higher ASA and ISAR grade, and took anticoagulants more often. Patients were treated more often with HA on nationwide holidays and during nonworking hours. This could lead to a suboptimal preoperative preparation and reduced surgical experience, described as the “weekend effect” [30, 31].
A regular geriatric ward round is necessary for certification as ATZ, and should improve transition from acute hospital to rehabilitation institution, coinciding with the needs of the multimorbid patient, starting at admission in the acute hospital. Comparing in-house mortality rate and that rate 120 days postoperatively, with the latest publications, we were affected by additional medical advice. Gundel et al. shows an overall mortality rate after hip fracture in Denmark of 16% at 90 days postoperatively [32]. The positive influence on mortality rate of an orthogeriatric team was described by Lisk et al., showing a decrease from 7.8 to 5.3% after implementing the team, confirmed by several meta-analyses and observational studies [18, 33, 34]. The same effect was reported by Knobe et al. with a decrease in mortality from 9 to 2% after orthogeriatric co-management was established [19].
Avoiding additional surgery and/or treatment for the same injury is essential for elderly patients. Therefore, we analysed the surgery-associated complications rate after HA and THA, and found a higher risk of hip joint dislocation in the THA group within 120 days. Baker et al. showed a rate of 7.5% joint dislocation after THA in a 30-day follow-up, while there was no dislocation in the HA group [35]. Van den Bekerom et al. conducted a 5-year follow-up in 2010 and presented a significantly higher rate of dislocation in the THA group [36]. Several meta-analyses support the higher risk of dislocation after THA [22, 23]. A recently published RCT did not find significant differences on secondary procedures following THA or HA. Patients younger than 70 years of age were also included in this study [24]. Another RCT published in 2007 by Blomfeldt et al. reported no differences in complication rates between THA and HA, but excluded patients with severe cognitive deficits, institutionalized patients, and a need for walking aids, as Macaulay et al. did in 2008 [7, 9]. The readmission rate within 120 days was 4% in the HA and 8% in the THA group, with less readmissions than overall readmission rate of the ATR [37]. A study from Taiwan showed a readmission rate in nonagenarians of 24.1% within the first 3 months after hip fracture [38]. Due to lack of comparable studies, we highlight our data for further investigations.
Although HA was associated with less postoperative surgical complications, the patients did not achieve the same results with respect to walking ability. Yet, the distribution of walking ability was not significantly different, with a degradation in mobility of 62% in the HA group and 51% in the THA group; the THA group presented significantly more independent walking without use of a frame. This compares to Dyer et al., showing the reduction of mobility in 40–60% of patients postoperatively for hip fracture [39]. Independent walking in the THA group confirms other studies’ outcomes, though we focused on walking with or without aids, whereas other studies analysed function via the Oxford Hip Score or Harris Hip Score [7, 9, 35].
A correlation existed between walking ability and QoL, as measured by the EQ-5D-3L. Seven days postoperatively, the EQ-5D-3L was not significant, but after 120 days it became significant, signifying that patients provided with THA present with less problems regarding mobility, self-care, daily activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression [40].
There are several limitations in our study: first, it was a retrospective analysis, but data for the ATR-DGU were collected prospectively. Second, only certified hospitals were involved in the ATR-DGU, as all patients were treated with orthogeriatric management. Thus, transmission to standard orthopaedic treatment was not possible. Another limitation is that follow-up 120 days postoperatively is optional, showing less included patients and potential selection bias. Moreover, no longer time periods of the follow-up are provided by the ATR-DGU. Furthermore, no other complications, for example cardiovascular complications, than surgical complications, no reasons for mortality, no information about the surgeons’ experiences, no information of the decision-making process for treatment selection, no validated scores for walking ability and no data from a possible intensive care treatment are part of the ATR-DGU, and therefore, are not available for analyses. Nevertheless, our study focused on patients aged 70 years or older and who were treated exclusively with orthogeriatric co-management. No exclusions criteria depending on patients’ conditions, such as dementia or care-dependency, were defined. Therefore, our study is unique in regard to the patients included in this study. Due to the comorbidities and cognitive impairments, the follow-up examinations in geriatric patients are often only possible to a limited extent. Therefore, analyses of clinical registers like the ATR-DGU, could led to an increased knowledge in this patient group.
In summary, a recommendation for one treatment option without considering preoperative health status and mobility is not possible. THA is preferred in healthier and more mobile patients, with increased walking ability and higher QoL, while HA is better for multimorbid patients to avoid more surgeries and/or medical treatment, more complications, and embarrassing outcomes. The patient age might of less importance. As all included patients were treated in an orthogeriatric co-management, a comparison of our results with standard orthopaedic treatment was not possible. The comparison was made in regard to the existing literature.
References
Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:1726–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0172-4.
Icks A, Haastert B, Wildner M, Becker C, Meyer G. Trend of hip fracture incidence in Germany 1995–2004: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19:1139–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-007-0534-6.
Riem S, Hartwig E, Hartwig J. Alterstraumatologie. Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie up2date. 2012;7:187–205. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1315024.
Muhm M, Amann M, Hofmann A, Ruffing T. Changes in the patient population with proximal femur fractures over the last decade: incidence, age, comorbidities, and length of stay. Unfallchirurg. 2018;121:649–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-017-0425-z.
de Laet CE, Pols HA. Fractures in the elderly: epidemiology and demography. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;14:171–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/beem.2000.0067.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE Quality Standard 16. Hip fracture in adults. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs16. Accessed 9 Oct 2019.
Macaulay W, Nellans KW, Garvin KL, Iorio R, Healy WL, Rosenwasser MP. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: winner of the Dorr Award. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.05.013.
Gebhard JS, Amstutz HC, Zinar DM, Dorey FJ. A comparison of total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty for treatment of acute fracture of the femoral neck. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;1992:123–31.
Blomfeldt R, Törnkvist H, Eriksson K, Söderqvist A, Ponzer S, Tidermark J. A randomised controlled trial comparing bipolar hemiarthroplasty with total hip replacement for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2007;89:160–5. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B2.18576.
Knobe M, Siebert CH. Hip fractures in the elderly: Osteosynthesis versus joint replacement. Orthopade. 2014;43:314–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-014-2265-7.
Hopley C, Stengel D, Ekkernkamp A, Wich M. Primary total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older patients: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c2332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2332.
Friess T, Hartwig E, Liener U, Sturm J, Hoffmann R. Geriatric trauma centers from the idea to implementation. What has been achieved? Unfallchirurg. 2016;119:7–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-015-0114-8.
Krause U, Jung K. Geriatric Fracture Centre (German Trauma Society): guidelines and certification to improve geriatric trauma care. Innov Surg Sci. 2016;1:79–85.
Schoeneberg C, Aigner R, Pass B, Volland R, Eschbach D, Peiris SE, et al. Effect of time-to-surgery on in-house mortality during orthogeriatric treatment following hip fracture: a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 16,236 patients of the AltersTraumaRegister DGU®. Injury. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2020.09.007.
Middleton M, Wan B, da Assunçao R. Improving hip fracture outcomes with integrated orthogeriatric care: a comparison between two accepted orthogeriatric models. Age Ageing. 2017;46:465–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afw232.
Folbert EC, Hegeman JH, Vermeer M, Regtuijt EM, van der Velde D, ten Duis HJ, Slaets JP. Improved 1-year mortality in elderly patients with a hip fracture following integrated orthogeriatric treatment. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28:269–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3711-7.
Prestmo A, Hagen G, Sletvold O, Helbostad JL, Thingstad P, Taraldsen K, et al. Comprehensive geriatric care for patients with hip fractures: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:1623–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62409-0.
Rapp K, Becker C, Todd C, Rothenbacher D, Schulz C, König H-H, et al. The association between orthogeriatric co-management and mortality following hip fracture. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020;117:53–9. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2020.0053.
Knobe M, Böttcher B, Coburn M, Friess T, Bollheimer LC, Heppner HJ, et al. Geriatric Trauma Center DGU®: Evaluation of clinical and economic parameters: a pilot study in a German university hospital. Unfallchirurg. 2019;122:134–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-018-0502-y.
Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:150–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.433.
Migliorini F, Trivellas A, Driessen A, Quack V, El Mansy Y, Schenker H, et al. Hemiarthroplasty versus total arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03409-3.
Wang F, Zhang H, Zhang Z, Ma C, Feng X. Comparison of bipolar hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the healthy elderly: a meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0696-x.
Burgers PTPW, van Geene AR, van den Bekerom MPJ, van Lieshout EMM, Blom B, Aleem IS, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the healthy elderly: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized trials. Int Orthop. 2012;36:1549–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1569-7.
Bhandari M, Einhorn TA, Guyatt G, Schemitsch EH, Zura RD, Sprague S, et al. Total hip arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2199–208. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1906190.
Avery PP, Baker RP, Walton MJ, Rooker JC, Squires B, Gargan MF, Bannister GC. Total hip replacement and hemiarthroplasty in mobile, independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck: a seven- to ten-year follow-up report of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2011;93:1045–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B8.27132.
Keating JF, Grant A, Masson M, Scott NW, Forbes JF. Randomized comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty. Treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in healthy older patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2006;88:249–60. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.E.00215.
Cadossi M, Chiarello E, Savarino L, Tedesco G, Baldini N, Faldini C, Giannini S. A comparison of hemiarthroplasty with a novel polycarbonate-urethane acetabular component for displaced intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck: a randomised controlled trial in elderly patients. Bone Jt J. 2013;95-B:609–15. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B5.31083.
Tol MCJM, van den Bekerom MPJ, Sierevelt IN, Hilverdink EF, Raaymakers ELFB, Goslings JC. Hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of a displaced intracapsular fracture in active elderly patients: 12-year follow-up of randomised trial. Bone Jt J. 2017;99-B:250–4. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ-2016-0479.R1.
Maceroli MA, Nikkel LE, Mahmood B, Elfar JC. Operative mortality after arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture and hospital volume. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2015;6:239–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/2151458515600496.
Boutera A, Dybvik E, Hallan G, Gjertsen J-E. Is there a weekend effect after hip fracture surgery? A study of 74,410 hip fractures reported to the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Acta Orthop. 2020;91:63–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1683945.
Sayers A, Whitehouse MR, Berstock JR, Harding KA, Kelly MB, Chesser TJ. The association between the day of the week of milestones in the care pathway of patients with hip fracture and 30-day mortality: findings from a prospective national registry—the National Hip Fracture Database of England and Wales. BMC Med. 2017;15:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0825-5.
Gundel O, Thygesen LC, Gögenur I, Ekeloef S. Postoperative mortality after a hip fracture over a 15-year period in Denmark: a national register study. Acta Orthop. 2020;91:58–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1680485.
Lisk R, Yeong K. Reducing mortality from hip fractures: a systematic quality improvement programme. BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u205006.w2103.
Mukherjee K, Brooks SE, Barraco RD, Como JJ, Hwang F, Robinson BRH, Crandall ML. Elderly adults with isolated hip fractures- orthogeriatric care versus standard care: a practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020;88:266–78. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000002482.
Baker RP, Squires B, Gargan MF, Bannister GC. Total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in mobile, independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck. A randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2006;88:2583–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.E.01373.
van den Bekerom MPJ, Hilverdink EF, Sierevelt IN, Reuling EMBP, Schnater JM, Bonke H, et al. A comparison of hemiarthroplasty with total hip replacement for displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck: a randomised controlled multicentre trial in patients aged 70 years and over. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2010;92:1422–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.24899.
Schoeneberg C, Knobe M, Babst R, Friess T, Volland R, Hartwig E, et al. 120-day follow-up after proximal femoral fractures-first results from the Geriatric Trauma Registry DGU®. Unfallchirurg. 2020;123:375–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-019-00730-4.
Tsang STJ, Aitken SA, Golay SK, Silverwood RK, Biant LC. When does hip fracture surgery fail? Injury. 2014;45:1059–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.03.019.
Dyer SM, Crotty M, Fairhall N, Magaziner J, Beaupre LA, Cameron ID, Sherrington C. A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-016-0332-0.
Szende A, Janssen B, Cabases J, editors. Self-reported population health: an international perspective based on EQ-5D. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014.
Funding
No funding was received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Contributions
BP: prepared the manuscript, analysed the data, and designed the study. LN: prepared the manuscript, collected and analysed the data. DE: analysed the data and reviewed the manuscript. RV: collected and analysed the data, and reviewed the manuscript. TK: analysed the data and reviewed the manuscript. MK: analysed the data and reviewed the manuscript. LO: analysed the data and reviewed the manuscript. SL: analysed the data and reviewed the manuscript. CS: designed the study, analysed the data and prepared the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript. Registry for Geriatric Trauma DGU: Host of the German Geriatric Trauma Register. It is no natural person. According to the publication guideline it is desired, the Registry for Geriatric Trauma DGU should list as a co-author. According to the guideline it should be written as "… and the Registry for Geriatric Trauma DGU" or "… on behalf of the Registry for Geriatric Trauma DGU". It is not the senior author of this manuscript, this is CS.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All the authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Ethics
Written patient consent was obtained by participating hospitals. The data from the ATR-DGU received full approval from the Ethics Committee of the medical faculty of the Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany (AZ 46/16).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pass, B., Nowak, L., Eschbach, D. et al. Differences of hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement in orthogeriatric treated elderly patients: a retrospective analysis of the Registry for Geriatric Trauma DGU®. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 48, 1841–1850 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01559-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01559-y