IMPORTANCE Decision-making on management of proximal femoral fractures in frail patients with limited life expectancy is challenging, but surgical overtreatment needs to be prevented. Current... Show moreIMPORTANCE Decision-making on management of proximal femoral fractures in frail patients with limited life expectancy is challenging, but surgical overtreatment needs to be prevented. Current literature provides limited insight into the true outcomes of nonoperative management and operative management in this patient population. OBJECTIVE To investigate the outcomes of nonoperative management vs operative management of proximal femoral fractures in institutionalized frail older patients with limited life expectancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter cohort studywas conducted between September 1, 2018, and April 25, 2020, with a 6-month follow-up period at 25 hospitals across the Netherlands. Eligible patientswere aged 70 years or older, frail, and institutionalized and sustained a femoral neck or pertrochanteric fracture. The term frail implied at least 1 of the following characteristicswas present: malnutrition (body mass index [calculated asweight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] <18.5) or cachexia, severe comorbidities (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class of IV or V), or severe mobility issues (Functional Ambulation Category similar to 2). EXPOSURES Shared decision-making (SDM) followed by nonoperative or operative fracture management. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomewas the EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ-5D) utility score by proxies and caregivers. Secondary outcome measures were QUALIDEM (a dementia-specific quality-of-life instrument for persons with dementia in residential settings) scores, pain level (assessed by the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors With Limited Ability to Communicate), adverse events (Clavien-Dindo classification), mortality, treatment satisfaction (numeric rating scale), and quality of dying (Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire). RESULTS Of the 172 enrolled patients with proximal femoral fractures (median [25th and 75th percentile] age, 88 [85-92] years; 135women [78%]), 88 opted for nonoperative management and 84 opted for operative management. The EQ-5D utility scores by proxies and caregivers in the nonoperative management group remained within the set 0.15 noninferiority limit of the operative management group (week 1: 0.17 [95% CI, 0.13-0.29] vs 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.23]; week 2: 0.19 [95% CI, 0.10-0.27] vs 0.28 [95% CI, 0.22-0.35]; and week 4: 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15-0.33] vs 0.34 [95% CI, 0.28-0.41]). Adverse eventswere less frequent in the nonoperative management group vs the operative management group (67 vs 167). The 30-day mortality rate was 83%(n = 73) in the nonoperative management group and 25%(n = 21) in the operative management group, with 26 proxies and caregivers (51%) in the nonoperative management group rating the quality of dying as good-almost perfect. Treatment satisfaction was high in both groups, with a median numeric rating scale score of 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this study indicated that nonoperative management of proximal femoral fractures (selected through an SDM process) was a viable option for frail institutionalized patients with limited life expectancy, suggesting that surgery should not be a foregone conclusion for this patient population. Show less
Objectives: In the SPRINT trial, 18% of patients with a tibial shaft fracture (TSF) treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) had one or more unplanned subsequent surgical procedures. It is... Show moreObjectives: In the SPRINT trial, 18% of patients with a tibial shaft fracture (TSF) treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) had one or more unplanned subsequent surgical procedures. It is clinically relevant for surgeon and patient to anticipate unplanned secondary procedures, other than operations that can be readily expected such as reconstructive procedures for soft tissue defects. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop a machine learning (ML) prediction model using the SPRINT data that can give individual patients and their care team an estimate of their particular probability of an unplanned second surgery. Methods: Patients from the SPRINT trial with unilateral TSFs were randomly divided into a training set (80%) and test set (20%). Five ML algorithms were trained in recognizing patterns associated with subsequent surgery in the training set based on a subset of variables identified by random forest algorithms. Performance of each ML algorithm was evaluated and compared based on (1) area under the ROC curve, (2) calibration slope and intercept, and (3) the Brier score. Results: Total data set comprised 1198 patients, of whom 214 patients (18%) underwent subsequent surgery. Seven variables were used to train ML algorithms: (1) Gustilo-Anderson classification, (2) Tscherne classification, (3) fracture location, (4) fracture gap, (5) polytrauma, (6) injury mechanism, and (7) OTA/AO classification. The best-performing ML algorithm had an area under the ROC curve, calibration slope, calibration intercept, and the Brier score of 0.766, 0.954, -0.002, and 0.120 in the training set and 0.773, 0.922, 0, and 0.119 in the test set, respectively. Conclusions: An ML algorithm was developed to predict the probability of subsequent surgery after IMN for TSFs. This ML algorithm may assist surgeons to inform patients about the probability of subsequent surgery and might help to identify patients who need a different perioperative plan or a more intensive approach. Show less
