Background To examine for a possible relationship between osteoarthritis and cardiovascular disease. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Published and unpublished literature from: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey and clinical trial registers. Search to 22 November 2014. Cohort, case-control, randomised and non-randomised controlled trial papers reporting the prevalence of cardiovascular disease in osteoarthritis were included. Results Fifteen studies with 32,278,744 individuals were eligible. Pooled prevalence for overall cardiovascular disease pathology in people with osteoarthritis was 38.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 37.2% to 39.6%). Individuals with osteoarthritis were almost three times as likely to have heart failure (relative risk (RR): 2.80; 95% CI: 2.25 to 3.49) or ischaemic heart disease (RR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.69) compared with matched non-osteoarthritis cohorts. No significant difference was detected between the two groups for the risk of experiencing myocardial infarction or stroke. There was a three-fold decrease in the risk of experiencing a transient ischaemic attack in the osteoarthritis cohort compared with the non-osteoarthritis group. Conclusions Prevalence of cardiovascular disease in patients with osteoarthritis is significant. There was an observed increased risk of incident heart failure and ischaemic heart disease in people with osteoarthritis compared with matched controls. However, the relationship between osteoarthritis and cardiovascular disease is not straightforward and there is a need to better understand the potential common pathways linking pathophysiological mechanisms.

Delirium is a serious and common acute neuropsychiatric syndrome that is associated with short- and long-term adverse health outcomes. However, relatively little delirium research has been conducted in unselected populations. Epidemiologic research in such populations has the potential to resolve several questions of clinical significance in delirium. Part 1 of this article explores the importance of population selection, case-ascertainment, attrition, and confounding. Part 2 examines a specific question in delirium epidemiology: What is the relationship between delirium and trajectories of cognitive decline? This section assesses previous work through two systematic reviews and proposes a design for investigating delirium in the context of longitudinal cohort studies. Such a design requires robust links between community and hospital settings. Practical considerations for case-ascertainment in the hospital, as well as the necessary quality control of these programs, are outlined. We argue that attention to these factors is important if delirium research is to benefit fully from a population perspective.

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to assess the independent association of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on postoperative mortality for patients undergoing orthopaedic and trauma surgery. The secondary aim was to identify factors that were associated with developing COVID-19 during the postoperative period.Methods: A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of all patients presenting to nine centres over a 50-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020 to 19 April 2020) with a minimum of 50 days follow-up. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, priority (urgent or elective), procedure type, COVID-19 status, and postoperative mortality were recorded.Results: During the study period, 1,659 procedures were performed in 1,569 patients. There were 68 (4.3%) patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19. There were 85 (5.4%) deaths postoperatively. Patients who had COVID-19 had a significantly lower survival rate when compared with those without a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection (67.6% vs 95.8%, p < 0.001). When adjusting for confounding variables (older age (p < 0.001), female sex (p = 0.004), hip fracture (p = 0.003), and increasing ASA grade (p < 0.001)) a diagnosis of COVID-19 was associated with an increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.12; p = 0.014). A total of 62 patients developed COVID-19 postoperatively, of which two were in the elective and 60 were in the urgent group. Patients aged > 77 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.16; p = 0.001), with increasing ASA grade (OR 2.74; p < 0.001), sustaining a hip (OR 4.56; p = 0.008) or periprosthetic fracture (OR 14.70; p < 0.001) were more likely to develop COVID-19 postoperatively.Conclusion: Perioperative COVID-19 nearly doubled the background postoperative mortality risk following surgery. Patients at risk of developing COVID-19 postoperatively (patients > 77 years, increasing morbidity, sustaining a hip or periprosthetic fracture) may benefit from perioperative shielding. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1774–1781.

Background: Optimizing the perioperative care of patients with a hip fracture is a key health-care priority. We aimed to determine whether adherence to the Scottish Standards of Care for Hip Fracture Patients (SSCHFP) was associated with improved patient outcomes. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data from the Scottish National Hip Fracture Audit, we assessed adherence to the SSCHFP in 21 Scottish hospitals over a 9-month period in 2014 and examined the effect of the guidelines on 30 and 120-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and discharge destination. Results: A total of 1,162 patients who were ≥50 years old and admitted with a hip fracture were included. There was a significant association between low adherence to the SSCHFP and increased mortality at 30 and 120 days (odds ratio [OR], 3.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.75 to 7.32; p < 0.001] and 2.01 [95% CI, 1.28 to 3.12; p = 0.003], respectively). Low adherence was associated with a reduced likelihood of a short length of stay (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.78; p < 0.0001), but increased odds of discharge to a high-care setting (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.36; p = 0.01). Early physiotherapy input and occupational therapy input were associated with a reduced likelihood of discharge to a high-care setting (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.98; p = 0.04] and 0.34 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.48; p <0.001], respectively). Conclusions: Adherence to the SSCHFP is associated with better patient outcomes. These findings confirm the clinical utility of the SSCHFP and support their use as a benchmarking tool to improve quality of care for hip fractures. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims: The aim of this study was to explore current use of the Global Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) Minimum Common Dataset (MCD) within established national hip fracture registries, and to propose a revised MCD to enable international benchmarking for hip fracture care. Methods: We compared all ten established national hip fracture registries: England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Scotland; Australia and New Zealand; Republic of Ireland; Germany; the Netherlands; Sweden; Norway; Denmark; and Spain. We tabulated all questions included in each registry, and cross-referenced them against the 32 questions of the MCD dataset. Having identified those questions consistently used in the majority of national audits, and which additional fields were used less commonly, we then used consensus methods to establish a revised MCD. Results: A total of 215 unique questions were used across the ten registries. Only 72 (34%) were used in more than one national audit, and only 32 (15%) by more than half of audits. Only one registry used all 32 questions from the 2014 MCD, and five questions were only collected by a single registry. Only 21 of the 32 questions in the MCD were used in the majority of national audits. Only three fields (anaesthetic grade, operation, and date/time of surgery) were used by all ten established audits. We presented these findings at the Asia-Pacific FFN meeting, and used an online questionnaire to capture feedback from expert clinicians from different countries. A draft revision of the MCD was then presented to all 95 nations represented at the Global FFN conference in September 2021, with online feedback again used to finalize the revised MCD. Conclusion: The revised MCD will help aspirant nations establish new registry programmes, facilitate the integration of novel analytic techniques and greater multinational collaboration, and serve as an internationally-accepted standard for monitoring and improving hip fracture services. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):721–728.