PURPOSE: Fragility fractures impose a substantial burden on older people and their families, healthcare systems and national economies. The current incidence of hip and other fragility fractures across the Asia Pacific region is enormous and set to escalate rapidly in the coming decades. This publication describes findings of a survey of awareness and attitudes to the management of fragility fractures among the membership of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association (APOA) conducted in 2022.
METHODS: The survey was developed as a collaboration between the Asia Pacific Osteoporosis and Fragility Fracture Society and the Asia Pacific Fragility Fracture Alliance, and included questions relating to aspects of care upon presentation, during surgery and mobilisation, secondary fracture prevention, and access to specific services.
RESULTS: In total, 521 APOA members completed the survey and marked variation in delivery of care was evident. Notable findings included: Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated that analgesia was routinely initiated in transit (by paramedics) or within 30 minutes of arrival in the Emergency Department. One-quarter of respondents stated that more than 80% of their patients underwent surgery within 48 hours of admission. One-third of respondents considered non-hip, non-vertebral fractures to merit assessment of future fracture risk. One-third of respondents reported the presence of an Orthogeriatric Service in their hospital, and less than a quarter reported the presence of a Fracture Liaison Service.
CONCLUSION: A Call to Action for all National Orthopaedic Associations affiliated with APOA is proposed to improve the care of fragility fracture patients across the region.
METHODS: One hundred fifty-three orthopaedic residents were recruited and randomly assigned to either the LAC or CAC. They were allocated 2 practice sessions, with 20 minutes each, to practice 4 given arthroscopic tasks: task 1, transferring objects; task 2, stacking objects; task 3, probing numbers; and task 4, stretching rubber bands. The time taken for participants to complete the given tasks was recorded in 3 separate tests; before practice, immediately after practice, and after a period of 3 months. A comparison of the time taken between both groups to complete the given tasks in each test was measured as the primary outcome.
RESULTS: Significant improvements in time completion were seen in the post-practice test for both groups in all given arthroscopic tasks, each with P < .001. However, there was no significant difference between the groups for task 1 (P = .743), task 2 (P = .940), task 3 (P = .932), task 4 (P = .929), and total (P = .944). The outcomes of the tests (before practice, after practice, and at 3 months) according to repeated measures analysis of variance did not differ significantly between the groups in task 1 (P = .475), task 2 (P = .558), task 3 (P = .850), task 4 (P = .965), and total (P = .865).
CONCLUSIONS: The LAC is equally as effective as the CAC in basic arthroscopic skills training with the advantage of being cost-effective.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In view of the scarcity in commercial arthroscopic devices for trainees, this low-cost device, which trainees can personally own and use, may provide a less expensive and easily available way for trainees to improve their arthroscopic skills. This might also cultivate more interest in arthroscopic surgery among junior surgeons.