Sind Prozessänderungen messbar? Eine Analyse über 16 Jahre mit 4163 proximalen Femurfrakturen

Abstract

Introduction

Process changes in the perioperative setting are rarely analysed, as their results are not immediately tangible and require a high case volume. The primary objective of this study was to retrospectively evaluate process changes using proximal femur fractures (PFF) and to examine their effect using various outcome measures. The secondary objective was to define potential quality criteria for the management of PFF.

Patients/Materials

This study included a retrospective analysis of the database of a level-1 trauma centre for PFF. All PFF treated with osteosynthesis and endoprosthesis during the treatment period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2021, were included. The 16-year period was trichotomously divided for statistical analysis, and the first 6 years were used as the baseline. A total of 10 process changes were implemented in the subsequent 10 years. The impact of these changes was assessed using operative revision rate, infection rate, perioperative transfusion rate, and 1-year mortality.

Results

A total of 4,163 PFF were analysed. Regarding the outcome measures, changes in the first 5 years (2012–2016; intramedullary procedures for osteosynthesis and use of disposable drape and gown) showed the most significant effect, with sustained reduction in long-term surgical revision rate of < 10%. Further process optimisations over the past 5 years (2017–2021) also yielded measurable improvements (reduction in infection and transfusion rates). The 1-year mortality remained unchanged, even during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion

Process changes in PFF do not immediately lead to objectively measurable improvements. In retrospect, the paradigm shift from extra- to intramedullary osteosynthesis appears to have the greatest effect, although gradual improvements were noted in all outcome measures over the past 10 years, except for mortality. An objective quality control target should aim for a 1-year revision rate of < 10%.

Schlüsselwörter

proximale Femurfraktur - Prozessänderungen - Revision - Outcome - Letalität

Publication History

Received: 12 September 2023

Accepted after revision: 24 February 2024

Article published online:
15 April 2024

• Literatur

• 1 Baidwan NK, Naranje SM. Epidemiology and recent trends of geriatric fractures presenting to the emergency department for United States population from year 2004–2014. Public Health 2017; 142: 64-69 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2016.10.018.
• 2 Mattisson L, Bojan A, Enocson A. Epidemiology, treatment and mortality of trochanteric and subtrochanteric hip fractures: data from the Swedish fracture register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19: 369 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-018-2276-3. (PMID: 30314495)
• 3 Neumann CJ, Schulze-Raestrup U, Müller-Mai CM. et al. Entwicklung der stationären Versorgungsqualität operativ behandelter Patienten mit einer proximalen Femurfraktur in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Eine Analyse über 61.249 Behandlungsverläufe auf Grundlage der Daten der externen stationären Qualitätssicherung. Unfallchirurgie 2022; 125: 634-646 DOI: 10.1007/s00113-021-01065-9.
• 4 Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen (IQTIG). Accessed November 01, 2023 at: https://www.iqtig.org
• 5 Schoeneberg C, Aigner R, Pass B. 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 2021; 52: 554-561 DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.09.007.
• 6 Schoeneberg C, Knobe M, Babst R. et al. 120-Tage-Follow-up nach hüftgelenknahen Frakturen – erste Daten aus dem AltersTraumaRegister DGU®. Unfallchirurg 2020; 123: 375-385 DOI: 10.1007/s00113-019-00730-4.
• 7 Rapp K, Becker C, Todd C. et al. The association between orthogeriatric co-management and mortality following hip fracture. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2020; 117: 53-59 DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0053.
• 8 Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J. et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium – 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma 2007; 21(10 Suppl): S1-S133 DOI: 10.1097/00005131-200711101-00001. (PMID: 18277234)
• 9 Fischer H, Maleitzke T, Eder C. et al. Management of proximal femur fractures in the elderly: current concepts and treatment options. Eur J Med Res 2021; 26: 86 DOI: 10.1186/s40001-021-00556-0. (PMID: 34348796)
• 10 Raaymakers EL. Fractures of the femoral neck: a review and personal statement. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2006; 73: 45-59 (PMID: 16613748)
• 11 Müller F, Galler M, Kottmann T. et al. Analyse von 2000 operativ versorgten proximalen Femurfrakturen. Multiple Variablen beeinflussen die Mortalität. Unfallchirurg 2018; 121: 550-559 DOI: 10.1007/s00113-017-0386-2.
• 12 Röttinger H. Minimalinvasiver Zugang zum Hüftgelenk (OCM) zur Implantation von Hüftendoprothesen. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2010; 22: 421-430 DOI: 10.1007/s00064-010-8035-8. (PMID: 20931321)
• 13 Lian T, Brandrud A, Mariero L. et al. 60% reduction of reoperations and complications for elderly patients with hip fractures through the implementation of a six-item improvement programme. BMJ Open Qual 2022; 11: e001848 DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2022-001848.
• 14 Liu Y, Tao R, Liu F. et al. Mid-term outcomes after intramedullary fixation of peritrochanteric femoral fractures using the new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Injury 2010; 41: 810-817 DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.03.020. (PMID: 20472234)
• 15 Shen L, Zhang Y, Shen Y. et al. Antirotation proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw for intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99: 377-383 DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.12.019. (PMID: 23707739)
• 16 Rechenmacher SJ, Fang JC. Bridging anticoagulation: primum non nocere. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66: 1392-1403 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.08.002. (PMID: 26383727)
• 17 Spyropoulos AC, Douketis JD. How I treat anticoagulated patients undergoing an elective procedure or surgery. Blood 2012; 120: 2954-2962 DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-06-415943. (PMID: 22932800)
• 18 Verma A, Ha ACT, Rutka JT. et al. What surgeons should know about non-vitamin k oral anticoagulants: a review. JAMA Surg 2018; 153: 577-585 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0374.
• 19 Tjeenk RM, Peeters MP, van den Ende E. et al. Wound drainage versus non-drainage for proximal femoral fractures. A prospective randomised study. Injury 2005; 36: 100-104 DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2004.04.011. (PMID: 15589927)
• 20 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Richtlinie zur Versorgung der hüftgelenknahen Femurfraktur. Beschluss vom 22.11.2019. Accessed August 01, 2023 at: https://www.g-ba.de/beschluesse/4069/
• 21 Lewis DP, Wæver D, Thorninger R. et al. Hemiarthroplasty vs total hip arthroplasty for the management of displaced neck of femur fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 1837-1843 DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.070. (PMID: 31060915)
• 22 Moerman S, Mathijssen NM, Tuinebreijer WE. et al. Hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty in 30,830 patients with hip fractures: data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register on revision and risk factors for revision. Acta Orthop 2018; 89: 509-514 DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2018.1499069. (PMID: 30080985)
• 23 Andersen LØ, Kehlet H. Analgesic efficacy of local infiltration analgesia in hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth 2014; 113: 360-374 DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeu155. (PMID: 24939863)
• 24 Masouros P, Antoniou G, Nikolaou VS. Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in hip fracture surgery. How does dosage affect outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Injury 2022; 53: 294-300 DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.09.063. (PMID: 34689986)
• 25 Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF. et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2992-2994 DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2102-9.
• 26 Allegranzi B, Zayed B, Bischoff P. et al. New WHO recommendations on intraoperative and postoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16: 288-303 DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30402-9. (PMID: 27816414)
• 27 Agodi A, Auxilia F, Barchitta M. et al. Operating theatre ventilation systems and microbial air contamination in total joint replacement surgery: results of the GISIO-ISChIA study. J Hosp Infect 2015; 90: 213-219 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2015.02.014. (PMID: 25997801)
• 28 Gundel O, Thygesen LC, Gögenur I. et al. Postoperative mortality after a hip fractures over a 15- year period in Denmark: a national register study. Acta Orthop 2020; 91: 58-62 DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1680485.
• 29 Wahlsten LR, Palm H, Gislason GH. et al. Sex differences in incidence rate, and temporal changes in surgical management and adverse events after hip fracture surgery in Denmark 1997–2017: a register-based study of 153,058 hip fracture patients. Acta Orthop 2021; 92: 424-430 DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1923256. (PMID: 33988073)
• 30 Gjertsen JE, Dybvik E, Furnes O. et al. Improved outcome after hip fracture surgery in Norway. Acta Orthop 2017; 88: 505-511 DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1344456. (PMID: 28681677)
• 31 Cheung ZB, Xiao R, Forsh DA. Time to surgery and complications in hip fracture patients on novel oral anticoagulants: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2022; 142: 633-640 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03701-2. (PMID: 33417028)
• 32 Krebs NM, VanWagner MJ, Marchewka T. et al. Tranexamic acid in the treatment of hip fractures: a clinical review. Spartan Med Res J 2019; 3: 7026 DOI: 10.51894/001c.7026. (PMID: 33655149)
• 33 Mundi S, Pindiprolu B, Simunovic N. et al. Similar mortality rates in hip fracture patients over the past 31 years. Acta Orthop 2014; 85: 54-59 DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2013.878831. (PMID: 24397744)