Gert R. Roukema

Aims: The aim of this study was to assess differences in the clinical profile and baseline characteristics between patients with femoral neck fracture (FNF) and trochanteric fracture (TF). The secondary aim was to explore potential differences in clinical outcomes and mortality.Methods: A prospective hip fracture database (FAMMI) was used to obtain data for this observational cohort study. Patients with hip fracture surgery between January 2018 and February 2021 who were aged older than 70 years were prospectively included. Differences between patients with FNF and TF were evaluated by univariable logistic regression. A multivariable analysis was performed to analyze the relationship between type of fracture and mortality, adjusting for potential confounders.Results: In total, 2,089 patients were analyzed, of whom 1,233 (59%) had FNF and 856 (41%) had TF. Patients with TF were older, more often female, had a higher rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and dementia, and had a lower Katz Index of Independence in activities of daily living score. Patients with TF had a lower rate of clinical complications such as delirium, pneumonia, reoperation, or wound infections. No differences in 30-day and one-year mortality were observed, also after multivariable correction.Conclusion: Based on this study, elderly patients with TF exhibit a comparatively inferior baseline status in comparison to patients with FNF. However, patients with TF have lower incidence of postoperative complications. No differences in 30-day and one-year mortality rates were observed between patients with the two types of proximal femoral fractures.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(4):373–382.

Background: The aim of this study was to develop an accurate and clinically relevant prediction model for 30-day mortality following hip fracture surgery. Methods: A previous study protocol was utilized as a guideline for data collection and as the standard for the hip fracture treatment. Two prospective, detailed hip fracture databases of 2 different hospitals (hospital A, training cohort; hospital B, testing cohort) were utilized to obtain data. On the basis of the literature, the results of a univariable analysis, and expert opinion, 26 candidate predictors of 30-day mortality were selected. Subsequently, the training of the model, including variable selection, was performed on the training cohort (hospital A) with use of adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression. External validation was performed on the testing cohort (hospital B). Results: A total of 3,523 patients were analyzed, of whom 302 (8.6%) died within 30 days after surgery. After the LASSO analysis, 7 of the 26 variables were included in the prediction model: age, gender, an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 4, dementia, albumin level, Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living total score, and residence in a nursing home. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the prediction model was 0.789 in the training cohort and 0.775 in the testing cohort. The calibration curve showed good consistency between observed and predicted 30-day mortality. Conclusions: The Rotterdam Hip Fracture Mortality Prediction-30 Days (RHMP-30) was developed and externally validated, and showed adequate performance in predicting 30-day mortality following hip fracture surgery. The RHMP-30 will be helpful for shared decision-making with patients regarding hip fracture treatment. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims: Factors associated with high mortality rates in geriatric hip fracture patients are frequently unmodifiable. Time to surgery, however, might be a modifiable factor of interest to optimize clinical outcomes after hip fracture surgery. This study aims to determine the influence of postponement of surgery due to non-medical reasons on clinical outcomes in acute hip fracture surgery. Methods: This observational cohort study enrolled consecutively admitted patients with a proximal femoral fracture, for which surgery was performed between 1 January 2018 and 11 January 2021 in two level II trauma teaching hospitals. Patients with medical indications to postpone surgery were excluded. A total of 1,803 patients were included, of whom 1,428 had surgery < 24 hours and 375 had surgery ≥ 24 hours after admission. Results: Prolonged total length of stay was found when surgery was performed ≥ 24 hours (median 6 days (interquartile range (IQR) 4 to 9) vs 7 days (IQR 5 to 10); p = 0.001) after admission. No differences in postoperative length of hospital stay nor in 30-day mortality rates were found. In subgroup analysis for time frames of 12 hours each, pressure sores and urinary tract infections were diagnosed more frequently when time to surgery increased. Conclusion: Longer time to surgery due to non-medical reasons was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative pressure sores and urinary tract infections when time to surgery was more than 48 hours after admission. No association was found between time to surgery and 30-day mortality rates or postoperative length of hospital stay. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1369–1378.

Purpose: Syndesmotic screw removal following acute syndesmotic injury is a commonly performed procedure. However, recent studies suggest that the removal does not result in improved patient reported outcome, while the procedure has proved not to be without complications. The aim of this study was to present a health-economic evaluation of on-demand removal (ODR) compared to routine removal (RR) of the syndesmotic screw. Methods: Data were collected from the RODEO trial, a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing functional outcome of ODR with RR. Economic evaluation resulted in total costs, costs (in Euro) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and costs per point improvement on the Olerud Molander Ankle Score (OMAS). This included both direct and indirect costs. Results: Total costs for ODR were significantly lower with a mean difference of 3160 euro compared to RR (p < 0.001). The difference in QALY was not significant. The difference in OMAS at 12 months was 1.79 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €-1763 (p = 0.512). The ICER was well below the willingness to pay. Although unit costs might vary between hospitals and countries, these results provide relevant data of cost-effectiveness. Conclusion: The clinical effectiveness of both ODR and RR can be considered equal. The costs are lower for patients treated with ODR, which leads to the conclusion that ODR is cost-effective.

Background: Syndesmotic injuries are common and their incidence is rising. In case of surgical fixation of the syndesmosis a metal syndesmotic screw is used most often. It is however unclear whether this screw needs to be removed routinely after the syndesmosis has healed. Traditionally the screw is removed after six to 12 weeks as it is thought to hamper ankle functional and to be a source of pain. Some studies however suggest this is only the case in a minority of patients. We therefore aim to investigate the effect of retaining the syndesmotic screw on functional outcome. Design: This is a pragmatic international multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with an acute syndesmotic injury for which a metallic syndesmotic screw was placed. Patients will be randomised to either routine removal of the syndesmotic screw or removal on demand. Primary outcome is functional recovery at 12 months measured with the Olerud-Molander Score. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, pain and costs. In total 194 patients will be needed to demonstrate non-inferiority between the two interventions at 80% power and a significance level of 0.025 including 15% loss to follow-up. Discussion: If removal on demand of the syndesmotic screw is non-inferior to routine removal in terms of functional outcome, this will offer a strong argument to adopt this as standard practice of care. This means that patients will not have to undergo a secondary procedure, leading to less complications and subsequent lower costs. Trial registration: This study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5965), Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02896998) on July 15th 2016.

Frostbite is an injury caused by the freezing of tissue, causing varied levels of tissue damage and necrosis. Case reports have shown a positive effect of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) in such injuries, in acute cases as well as delayed (up to 21 days) presentation with complications. In this case report we present the course of hyperbaric treatment of two patients (a brother and sister, age 58 and 62) who sustained frostbite injuries to both feet 28 days earlier while hiking in the Himalayas. They were initially treated in Nepal following local protocol; afterward their primary care in the Netherlands was managed by the Burn Centre at Maasstad Hospital in Rotterdam. Both patients were treated with daily sessions of in total 80 minutes of 100% oxygen at 2.5 atmospheres absolute. The female patient (age 62) received 25 sessions and showed a remarkable preservation of tissue and quick demarcation. Only partial surgical amputation of the second toe on the right was needed. In the male patient (age 58) both front feet were already mummified to a larger extent before start of treatment. During hyperbaric oxygen therapy 30 sessions) demarcation progressed quickly, resulting in early surgical amputation. Both patients experienced no side effects of HBO2 treatment. Given that both patients showed a quick progress and demarcation of their wounds, with remarkable tissue preservation in the female patient, we suggest that hyperbaric oxygen therapy should be considered in treating frostbite injuries, in acute as well as delayed cases, even four weeks after initial injury.

Background: The treatment of choice for elderly with a displaced intra-capsular femoral neck fractures is prosthetic replacement. This is however a major surgical procedure for geriatric patients with multiple co-morbidities which can threaten hemodynamic stability and lead to death. In this study we compared the outcome of internal fixation (IF) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA) for the management of intra-capsular femoral neck fractures in the elderly with severe co-morbidities. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all the patients who were admitted to our Level-II trauma centre with a femoral neck fracture between January 2009 and June 2011. Inclusion criteria were: 70 years or older, ASA 3 or higher, a displaced femoral neck fracture and treatment with either internal fixation or a cemented hemiprosthesis. The primary outcome was 6-month mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, post-operative complications, re-operation rate and length of hospital stay. Results: 80 patients met our inclusion criteria. The mean age of the IF group was 81.6 years and in the HA group it was 84.5 years (P=0.07). The medical records were retrieved 34-64 months after surgery. Two intra-operative deaths due to cement implantation syndrome were found in the HA group and none in the IF group. Twelve patients (21.8%) in the HA group died within 30 days after surgery and 2 (8.0%) in the IF group (P=0.21). The mean operating time was 83 min. for the HA group and 51 min. for the IF group (P=0.000). There were more implant-related complications in the IF than in the HA group (36% vs 9.1% respectively, P=0.008). The 6-month mortality rates didn’t differ between the IF and the HA groups (respectively 28.0% vs 34.5%, P=0.62). Conclusion: The post-operative mortality rates did not differ between the IF and the HA groups in elderly patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture and ASA 3 to 5. However, the HA associated with less implant-related complications than the IF in this group and it is therefore the treatment of choice.

Fractures of the humeral shaft are associated with a profound temporary (and in the elderly sometimes even permanent) impairment of independence and quality of life. These fractures can be treated operatively or non-operatively, but the optimal tailored treatment is an unresolved problem. As no high-quality comparative randomized or observational studies are available, a recent Cochrane review concluded there is no evidence of sufficient scientific quality available to inform the decision to operate or not. Since randomized controlled trials for this injury have shown feasibility issues, this study is designed to provide the best achievable evidence to answer this unresolved problem. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate functional recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment in adult patients who sustained a humeral shaft fracture. Secondary aims include the effect of treatment on pain, complications, generic health-related quality of life, time to resumption of activities of daily living and work, and cost-effectiveness. The main hypothesis is that operative treatment will result in faster recovery.