Injury. 2025 Aug 6;56(10):112662. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2025.112662. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The primary objective was to analyze the trends in hemiarthroplasty (HA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for adult patients with fractures (FNFs), with a focus on geriatric population, over the past two decades. The secondary objectives were to compare outcomes between HA and THA and evaluate its association with patient- and surgeon- specific factors.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Design: Retrospective cohort.

SETTING: Two Level 1 Trauma Centers. Patient Selection Criteria: Adult patients with FNFs between 2001 and 2023.

RESULTS: A total of 3180 cases of FNF treated with arthroplasty were included in the study, comprising 2497 patients who received HA and 683 patients who received THA. There was an overall increase in both THA and HA performed for geriatric FNFs with THA increasing at a faster rate (223 % vs. 172 %, respectively). Patients receiving THA were younger (70.8 vs. 81.4 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to be female (70.9 % vs. 65.1 %, p = 0.006). Patients receiving HA had lower BMI (24.6 vs. 25.4kg/m2, p = 0.002), higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (7.5 vs. 4.6, p < 0.001), and higher rates of dementia (29.9 % vs. 7.8 %, p < 0.001).Factors associated with selection of THA over HA included arthroplasty fellowship training (21.5 % vs. 10.4 %, p < 0.001) and greater surgical experience, as measured by years in practice (15.1 vs. 12.5 years, p < 0.001).. Patients receiving THA had shorter hospitalizations (6.3 vs. 7.9 days, p < 0.001) and were more likely to be discharged home (24.3 % vs. 5.5 %, p < 0.001). Despite similar reoperation rates (4.5 % vs. 5.1 %, p = 0.58), THA resulted in a higher complication rate (9.2 % vs. 6.1 %, p = 0.006). HA had higher 90-day (11.1 % vs. 1.6 %, p < 0.001) and 1 year (21.1 % vs. 3.8 %, p < 0.001) mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS: There has been a rising trend in THA for the treatment of FNFs over the past two decades, and factors affecting treatment decision are both patient and surgeon driven.

PMID:40840316 | DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2025.112662

Injury. 2025 Aug 13;56(10):112681. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2025.112681. Online ahead of print.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:40840315 | DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2025.112681

Injury. 2025 Aug 7;56(10):112654. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2025.112654. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Determine whether native acetabular anteversion angle increased the risk of ipsilateral limb injuries in patients with traumatic hip dislocations.

METHODS: Retrospective clinical series completed at a large, tertiary health care system between February 2016-November 2021. Patients with a native traumatic hip dislocation requiring a closed reduction in the operating room or open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of an associated fracture were included, identified using current provider terminology (CPT) codes 27,250 and 27,252. Standard acetabular version angles were measured on CT images.

RESULTS: 121 cases were included in the analysis. The average age of our population was 37.5 years and 72 % were male. The median acetabular version was 14.7° (2-27°). Of the 121 cases of dislocations, 28 experienced a knee injury (23 %, p = 0.89) and 40 had a femoral head injury (33 %, p = 0.88). The most common knee injuries were patellar fractures (29 %, n = 8), tibial plateau fractures (29 %, n = 8), meniscal injuries (25 %, n = 7) and ligamentous knee injuries 21 %, n = 6). Median version angle was not associated with an increase in predisposition to femoral head injury or knee injury for patients with a native hip dislocation (p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that native acetabular anteversion does not predispose, nor protect, patients from experiencing an ipsilateral limb injury in the setting of a traumatic hip dislocation. Future studies should investigate other factors that may influence the occurrence of ipsilateral limb injuries in these settings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV - Therapeutic (Retrospective Clinical Series).

PMID:40834614 | DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2025.112654

Injury. 2025 Aug 6;56(10):112675. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2025.112675. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: External chest wall fixators may provide a new approach as part of multimodal treatment. This study aimed to investigate the effect of external chest wall fixator on patients' pain level, complication development and hospital stay in patients with rib fractures.

MATERIAL AND METHOD: Patients who were admitted due to trauma and had serial rib fractures between December 2020 and December 2021 were evaluated. There were 14 patients in case group and 20 in control group. External chest wall fixator was applied to the case group in addition to standard treatment. Pain levels, development of complications and duration of hospitalization were recorded.

RESULTS: Pain levels in first and third months were lower in case group than control group. Mean pain levels in the first month were 1.79 (SD 0.80) in case group and 2.85 (SD 1.53) in control group, in the third-month were 0.43 (SD 0.64) in case group and 1.34 (SD 1.59) in control group, and the difference was significant (p = 0.022 and 0.032, respectively). Complications were more common in patients with more rib fractures (p = 0.002). While complications developed in 2 patients in the case group and 8 patients in the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.216). Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the case group and the difference was significant (2.7 (SD 0.9) days versus 2.0 (SD 0.7) days, p = 0.049).

CONCLUSION: It has been shown in our study that external fixator can be an effective method in reducing patients' pain and hospital stay. This method can be included as part of multimodal treatment in patients with rib fractures.

PMID:40829526 | DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2025.112675