Trends in implementation of evidence-based hip fracture management in a major Canadian city

AimsThe importance of hip fracture care has resulted in an abundance of hip fracture management literature. The degree this evidence is incorporated into clinical practice is unknown. We examined 5 trends in hip fracture management: arthroplasty versus fixation, total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA), cemented versus uncemented femoral stem fixation, short versus long cephalomedullary nail (CMN) fixation, and time from admission to surgery. Our primary aim was to understand and assess hip fracture management trends in relation to pertinent literature. MethodsData were collected from acute hip fractures in patients aged 50 years or older who presented from 2008 to 2018. ICD-10 diagnostic codes were assigned using preoperative radiographs. Surgical management was confirmed using intraoperative and postoperative radiographs and split into 6 categories: (1) short CMN, (2) long CMN, (3) cannulated screws, (4) dynamic hip screw, (5) HA, and (6) THA. Appropriate statistical tests were used to analyze trends. ResultsIn 4 assessed trends, hip fracture management aligned with high-level evidence. This was the case for a trend toward arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures, increased use of THA relative to HA, increased use of short relative to long CMNs, and consistent decrease in surgical wait times. Despite the literature highlighting the disadvantages of uncemented femoral stems, our data demonstrated increased use of uncemented femoral stems. ConclusionEvidence to guide orthopaedic practice is constantly emerging but may not be effectively used by clinicians. Our findings demonstrate the successes and failures of integrating evidence into hip fracture management and highlight that orthopaedic surgeons have an ongoing responsibility to strive for evidence-based practice.