Orthopedics

More than 40 million surgeries are performed annually in the United States, of which > 18 million are orthopedic, including > 1 million emergency orthopedic surgeries and > 2 million joint replacements.^1-4 Notably, > 50% of patients undergoing orthopedic surgery are aged ≥ 65 years, a demographic shift driven by longer life expectancies and an increasing number of older adults remaining physically active for extended periods.⁵ Osteoarthritis, the most common joint disease, affects 10% of men and 18% of women aged > 60 years, often necessitating an orthopedic joint replacement.⁶ Perioperative morbidity and mortality are 2.9- to 6.7-times higher in older adults compared with younger adults.⁷ These risks include infection, venous thromboembolism (VTE), pressure ulcers, reduced mobility, and increased mortality. Due to the high incidence of these complications in older surgical patients, special perioperative protocols and considerations are needed when preparing an older patient for surgery. This review aims to establish concrete considerations and guidelines for perioperative management.

METHODOLOGY

A literature review of PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore identified research on perioperative challenges in geriatric orthopedic surgery. Keywords included geriatrics and orthopedic surgery, perioperative care in geriatric populations, and orthopedic perioperative care. Inclusion criteria were strictly defined to ensure relevance to the geriatric population, with studies focusing on patients aged ≥ 65 years. Exclusion criteria were applied to remove studies that did not involve geriatric populations or orthopedic surgeries or that lacked a clear perioperative focus. Studies were analyzed for design, interventions, and outcomes. Special attention was given to identifying common challenges and trends related to perioperative considerations. We developed a narrative report providing a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of perioperative care for geriatric orthopedic patients to offer practical recommendations for clinicians to use in their practice.

RESULTS

Consistent with the narrative review methodology described, the literature search yielded a broad range of publications addressing perioperative considerations in geriatric orthopedic patients. Articles were screened for relevance to patients aged ≥ 65 years undergoing orthopedic surgery and for applicability to perioperative optimization and postoperative outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in study design, population characteristics, and outcome reporting, findings are presented descriptively rather than being quantitatively pooled. Studies not focused on geriatric populations, orthopedic procedures, or perioperative management were excluded. Key themes included multimorbidity and comorbidity optimization, age-related physiologic changes, frailty assessment and fracture risk stratification, nutritional and bone health management, mechanism of injury considerations, prevention of postoperative complications, and the role of multidisciplinary perioperative care.

Unique Physiological Challenges

The aging process induces a range of physiological changes that can increase morbidity and mortality following surgery. One of the most essential elements to surgical recovery is wound healing, as impairments in this process can lead to adverse events, including infection, cosmetic deformity, and wound dehiscence. The general paradigm of aging involves cell senescence resulting in slower or disorganized functional capacity of these cells.⁸ While wound healing in older individuals was once thought to be defective, recent research has demonstrated that this process is not absent, but delayed.⁹

Wound healing is a tightly regulated and evolutionarily conserved process that proceeds through 3 main phases: inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. Re-epithelialization begins with the migration of epithelial cells from hair follicles, sweat glands, or wound margins (depending on wound depth) and is influenced by oxygen levels, moisture, and growth factors.⁹ Several characteristics of aged skin contribute to the delayed healing process. Aged skin has fewer hair follicles and eccrine sweat glands, as well as decreased follicle thickness.¹⁰ This results in fewer proliferating cells for wound healing and lower amounts of sebum production for skin moisture.¹¹ Furthermore, aged fibroblasts are fewer in number and less effective in synthesizing extracellular matrices, resulting in slower and less tensile wound healing.¹² Additionally, microvascular changes associated with aging result in disorganized vasculature, which impairs oxygen delivery to the wound bed and diminishes the influx of proinflammatory cells necessary for effective healing.¹³ These senescent traits of aged skin contribute to the delayed wound healing process found in geriatric patients. 

Compounding these age-related factors is the prevalence of multimorbidity, or coexisting chronic diagnoses, in 55% to 98% of older patients.¹⁴ Common comorbidities include peripheral arterial disease, chronic venous insufficiency, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, neoplasms, atherosclerotic disease, and hypertension. Older patients are more likely to be prescribed corticosteroids and chemotherapeutic agents that impair the function of inflammatory cells necessary for wound healing.^15,16 Additionally, decreased mobility is more common in geriatric patients, which can increase the risk of wound formation, particularly pressure ulcers.¹⁷

Perioperative Considerations

All surgical patients undergo a formal or informal preoperative evaluation to assess their fitness for surgery, with the goal of minimizing both anesthesia-related risks and postoperative complications. A widely used tool in this assessment is the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, which stratifies patients into 6 categories based on their medical history and overall health status.¹⁸ Classes range from healthy patients (Class I) to organ donors who are brain-dead (Class VI).

Cardiac optimization is an essential component of preoperative evaluation for older adults due to their higher risk of underlying cardiovascular disease.¹⁹ This process involves an in-depth review of the patient’s cardiac history, including the timing and nature of any prior interventions and the recurrence rate. Functional capacity is assessed through metabolic equivalents, where a threshold of > 4 metabolic equivalents (the ability to walk up a flight of stairs) is considered adequate for surgery. Risk is assessed based on the specific surgical procedure, and nonemergent orthopedic procedures are considered intermediate risk. If a patient is deemed high risk at any stage of this evaluation, further cardiac testing is indicated. 

Pulmonary optimization is typically necessary for geriatric patients, who are more likely to have conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease.^14,20 In patients without severe systemic lung disease, pulmonary optimization involves assessing the functional expiratory volume and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide. In addition, aggressive modification of risk factors, such as smoking cessation, is strongly recommended. 

Additional perioperative conditions are disease-specific and involve evaluation of comorbid illnesses and recognition of absolute contraindications to noncardiac surgery. For instance, an ejection fraction of < 35%, a history of myocardial infarction within 6 months, or active diabetic ketoacidosis are all absolute contraindications to elective surgery. For orthopedic procedures, additional contraindications include symptomatic bacteremia, active joint or local tissue infection, severe malnutrition, uncontrolled metabolic syndrome or chronic disease, untreated immunodeficiency, and active deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism.²¹

Bone Health and Nutrition

In the context of orthopedic surgery, the hallmark of clinically defined optimal bone health is a musculoskeletal system that provides the ability for pain-free functional and occupational tasks with an adequate capacity to withstand the mechanical forces imparted by everyday life. Back pain and arthritis are the fourth- and sixth-most common complaints in primary care, underscoring suboptimal bone health management in developed countries.²²

Optimizing bone health through proper nutrition is crucial in the perioperative management of geriatric orthopedic patients. The clinical diagnosis of malnutrition has well-studied associations with worse outcomes after orthopedic surgery, which include increased mortality, hospital length of stay, readmission rates, and health institution spending.^23-25 Some studies show that up to 60% of geriatric patients may be malnourished.²⁶ 

Regarding vitamin and mineral supplements, the general consensus before orthopedic surgery is that vitamins A, C, D, and E, and zinc are predictive in determining postoperative health.²⁷ However, Curtis et al state that therapy should be targeted at correcting relative deficiencies; supraphysiologic concentrations of these vitamins do not appear to be helpful.²⁷ This claim may merit serum studies to rule out deficiencies. Dietitians should be involved in the creation of a patient care plan in the spirit of multidisciplinary orthopedic surgery approaches, which have proven to result in superior patient outcomes.²⁸ Additionally, directive counseling should be provided when necessary. 

In patients with adequately managed nutrition, 7 to 10 days of diet optimization is typically sufficient, but patients with malnutrition may require sustained nutritional support for up to 6 weeks; a standardized time for adequate nutrition supplementation has not been identified.^25-27 Postoperative management is similar in older patients who are malnourished and those receiving adequate nutrition after orthopedic surgery, which typically involves 3 weeks of a high-protein diet.²⁶

Evaluating Mechanisms of Injury

Assessing the mechanism of injury (MOI) is essential to developing an appropriate and successful orthopedic treatment plan. MOI is typically categorized as low energy, which consists of ground-level falls and other minor trauma, or high energy, which can include motor vehicle crashes or falls from a height.²⁹ Unlike younger patients who typically experience trauma from high-energy MOIs, geriatric patients often sustain fractures from low-energy MOIs. The importance of assessing MOI for the geriatric population is magnified as it provides vital clues that not only help determine the nature of the injury, but also highlight underlying frailty, comorbidities, and potential complications. Weakness or deconditioning related to older age is often not discovered before trauma, which is why assessing the MOI can provide valuable information regarding overall patient health.³⁰

The MOI of trauma also is correlated with factors that influence postoperative recovery and overall prognosis (Figure). Falls comprise more than three-quarters of the MOI in geriatric patients with trauma, and > 90% of these falls are ground-level or other simple falls.³⁰ Falls secondary to an intrinsic disorder, rather than an extrinsic environmental hazard, are more common in geriatric patients.³¹ 

These events may be associated with an underlying medical condition, such as osteopenia, osteoporosis, or neuromuscular disorders, such as Parkinson disease.³² They may also be attributed to normal age-related changes, such as decreased visual acuity, reduced reaction time, or mild cognitive impairment.³⁰ An estimated 6% to 35% of geriatric patients who present to the emergency department have some degree of cognitive dysfunction.³³ Accordingly, a thorough understanding of the events leading up to injury is vital for the management of older patients. Knowing the specific circumstances of a fall can provide insight into the patient’s gait, balance, and need for further investigations such as cognitive screening or evaluation of home safety. This information can guide decisions regarding preoperative optimization of medications and postoperative rehabilitation interventions.

Frailty and Risk of Fracture

Frailty is a clinical syndrome defined by overall decreased capacity for the body’s adaptive changes to various stressors.³⁴ It is a common condition in geriatric populations due to cumulative degenerative changes and multisystem decline over a lifetime’s worth of disruptions to natural homeostasis.³⁴ In orthopedics, frailty typically refers to musculoskeletal durability and resilience in response to mechanical forces (ie, falls, trauma, and high-acceleration movements). Globally, > 200 million people have osteoporotic frailty, leading to 9 million hip fractures annually.³⁵ More than 30% of people aged ≥ 65 years fall ≥ 1 time per calendar year.³⁶

Assessing frailty in geriatric patients undergoing orthopedic surgery is vital, as it predisposes patients to higher rates of morbidity, mortality, and institutionalization, particularly from falls and resultant fragility fractures.^37-39 This is true for a wide range of orthopedic procedures, spanning elective to urgent surgeries and involving the axial and appendicular skeleton.^40,41 Given the high rates of fractures, subsequent patient morbidity, and financial burden on the health care system, effective frailty screening is essential. 

There are many strategies to assess frailty risk and subsequent fracture risk.⁴² Questionnaires or online medical calculators serve as easy-to-use tools for assessment of frailty or associated predictors of fragility fractures. Validated assessment tools are provided in Table 1. 

Dual-emission X-ray absorptiometry is a well-established way to determine bone density and establish fracture risk. The Fried Frailty Phenotype score and Short Performance Physical Battery test are clinically applicable methods of assessing frailty in older outpatient populations. Although these examinations focus on different aspects of the patient, they have moderate agreeability, are sensitive, and can be readily performed in the clinical setting as demonstrated by a > 90% patient participation rate for both methods.⁴² Finally, several serum studies can be predictive of frailty, the most readily modifiable of which are vitamin D3, ferritin, albumin, and calcium.⁴³ Although they are more invasive for the patient, serum studies can provide additional modifiable targets for perioperative optimization and contribute to risk stratification. 

Risk stratification should take place around 6 weeks before surgery, which should provide adequate time for rectification of preoperative barriers to elective surgical intervention—namely nutritional status. In cases of urgent or emergent procedures (ie, femoral neck fracture with concern for avascular necrosis of the femoral head), this may not be possible but should be conducted nonetheless for patient-specific postoperative rehabilitation and risk reduction.

Postoperative Complication Risks

Postoperative complications affect nearly 15% of geriatric orthopedic patients, highlighting the need for comprehensive preoperative evaluations to assess risk factors.⁴⁴ Age-related physiological changes, frailty, and comorbidities complicate recovery and management (Table 2).

Wound healing is impaired in older individuals due to suboptimal circulation and decreased oxygenation that is secondary to age-related changes, as well as the increased likelihood of comorbid conditions (eg, diabetes).⁷ Surgical site infections can be particularly malicious in geriatric patients, with a 4% incidence.^45,46 Hospitalization can be prolonged by a mean 2 weeks, which increases the risk of hospital-associated delirium and iatrogenic complications.⁴⁶ Both the mortality rate and costs associated with hospitalization are higher for older patients who develop surgical site infections compared with patients aged < 65 years, underscoring the importance of vigilant monitoring, early detection, and effective preoperative screening to identify and manage modifiable risk factors.⁴⁷ 

Postoperative delirium is another common complication of orthopedic surgery in the geriatric population, increasing morbidity and mortality. The incidence is reported to be as high as 53.3% in the trauma setting and 28.3% in the elective setting, indicating a need to assess patient risk preoperatively.^48,49 Several factors contribute to the high incidence of delirium, including advanced age, longer surgical durations, intraoperative hypotension and hypercapnia, pre-existing cognitive dysfunction, and postoperative sleep disorders.⁵⁰ 

VTE is another common cause of complications following orthopedic surgery. The development of DVT can lead to subsequent pulmonary embolism, which can be fatal. Orthopedic surgery patients are already at higher risk of DVT and VTE than other surgical patients, with an incidence as high as 40% to 60%, though it is frequently asymptomatic.^51,52 Geriatric patients may be more likely to have concurrent comorbidities that increase hypercoagulability.⁵³ Congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease are all more common in older individuals and can increase the risk of VTE by 2-fold.⁵³ While anticoagulation is the standard of care to prevent VTE after orthopedic surgery, geriatric patients require more careful monitoring due to the higher incidence of bleeding complications. Additionally, early postoperative mobilization is critical to reduce the risk of DVT without significantly increasing pain or causing other adverse events.⁵⁴ 

Respiratory complications are common after orthopedic surgery, particularly atelectasis and bronchospasm, which can result from intraoperative mechanical ventilation.⁵⁵ While these conditions are typically self-limiting, more severe respiratory issues such as pneumonia are a significant concern because they may lead to the need for mechanical ventilation and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). The more severe complications have an incidence of about 1% to 2% in orthopedic surgery patients.⁵⁶ Preventive strategies, such as respiratory physiotherapy and guided breathing exercises, are crucial to minimize perioperative pulmonary complications and promote optimal recovery. Addressing these challenges through early intervention is essential to improve outcomes.

Multidisciplinary Perioperative Care

Multidisciplinary care in orthopedic surgery involves collaborative management of patient care by general practitioners, surgeons, anesthesiologists, dietitians, physical and occupational therapists, inpatient health care practitioners (HCPs), and social services. The goal of this form of care is to provide a longitudinal sequence of health-optimization tactics that prepare a patient for surgery and give them the best chance of postoperative recovery.

Given that many aspects of geriatric health play a role in orthopedic postoperative outcomes, there are many preoperative factors to consider. As previously discussed, preoperative evaluation of geriatric patients should include nutritional and fragility screening to determine surgical candidacy and target modifiable risk factors for risk reduction. This screening can be conducted by primary care practitioners and orthopedic surgeons in an outpatient setting. A multidisciplinary approach benefits patients by decreasing time to surgery.³⁵ 

Several large studies have demonstrated the positive influence of a multidisciplinary approach on patient-oriented outcomes in orthopedic patients. Incorporation of this style of care in contrast to surgeon-led perioperative optimization leads to fewer floor and ICU admissions, shorter lengths of stay, and decreased mortality rates.^35,57 These findings are broadly applicable to a wide range of orthopedic surgeries and even surgeries outside of the musculoskeletal system.^58,59 In addition, this strategy has demonstrated reduced in-hospital health care costs due to shorter lengths of stay and fewer ICU admissions. Physical and occupational therapy also have irreplaceable roles in outcomes after orthopedic surgeries. They have independently been shown to decrease pain, increase range of motion, and increase functionality in daily life.⁶⁰ These aspects of recovery are essential for geriatric well-being.

Screening Tools

The World Health Organization FRAX fracture risk assessment tool (www.fraxplus.org/calculation-tool) was developed to identify patients at high risk of fracture and subsequent complications and to guide clinical decision-making regarding pharmacologic interventions.⁶¹ FRAX calculates the 10-year probability of fracture based on demographic factors, such as age and body mass index, clinical measures (eg, femoral neck bone mineral density), and risk factors (eg, prior fragility fractures, substance use history, and prolonged glucocorticoid use).⁶¹ The online tool is easy to use, making it a valuable resource for assessing fracture risk and determining appropriate treatment strategies.

The fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, loss of weight (FRAIL) scale assesses frailty in older adults. The scale classifies patients into 3 categories: robust, prefrail, and frail. The frail category is associated with an increased frequency of hip fracture and an elevated ASA class.⁶² Additionally, the FRAIL scale has demonstrated value in predicting hospital length of stay and the risk of postoperative complications.⁶² It also has shown utility in quantifying frailty status, which is traditionally challenging to assess systematically.⁶³

The Mini-Cog is commonly used in geriatric populations to screen for cognitive impairment. Preoperative Mini-Cog screening has been shown to predict the development of postoperative complications.⁶⁴ Geriatric patients who screened positive for cognitive impairment prior to orthopedic surgery were more likely to develop postoperative delirium, require alternative discharge disposition, and have a longer hospital length of stay.⁶⁴ Mini-Cog serves as an important preoperative tool for identifying patients who may benefit from closer postoperative monitoring and tailored care.

The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional evaluation that has been validated for use in geriatric patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.⁶⁵ The CGA assesses functional status and the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), such as eating, dressing, and ambulating. Poor ADLs are associated with increased risk of falls and cardiopulmonary complications. The CGA allows HCPs to identify patients at higher risk of complications and tailor interventions that optimize functional recovery during the perioperative period.

Nutritional screening is another component of preoperative evaluation in older adults undergoing orthopedic surgery. The Perioperative Nutrition Screen is a preoperative phone assessment of unintentional weight loss in the past 6 months.⁶⁶ Patients who screen positive are asked to come in for a preoperative visit with a registered dietitian who can further evaluate the nutritional status of the patient. 

The Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, and Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 have all been validated for use in older patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Among these, the MNA-SF has demonstrated superior utility in predicting hospital readmission and mortality.⁶⁷ Given the established links between malnutrition and poor surgical outcomes, routine nutritional screening is important for identifying geriatric patients who may require preoperative nutritional interventions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Perioperative management of geriatric patients undergoing orthopedic surgery requires an assessment and strategy focused on risk stratification, patient optimization, and mitigation of potential complications and mortality. Due to the complexity and comprehensive nature of an optimal perioperative plan, creating the plan early is essential to ensure adequate time for patient optimization and care coordination.

Nutrition plays a critical role in the success of surgical procedures, and orthopedics is no exception. Extra care should be taken to preoperatively optimize patient bone health before surgical intervention to enhance recovery and reduce the risk of complications. After an appropriate patient history and clinical picture are gathered, screening tools should be used on a case-by-case basis to further characterize comorbid conditions that may contribute to suboptimal outcomes. Additionally, given the proven association between frailty and fracture risk, frailty serves as a readily quantifiable predictor of patient-oriented outcomes. This should be assessed preoperatively with appropriate risk-stratification tools to determine appropriate postoperative measures to prevent morbidity and mortality. 

Orthopedic surgery is increasingly common in geriatric patients, who face higher perioperative risks due to age-related physiological changes, multimorbidity, and frailty. Optimizing preoperative assessment and adopting a multidisciplinary approach—integrating surgeons, anesthesiologists, physical therapists, and dietitians—can improve outcomes, reduce complications, and enhance recovery. The successful use of the tools and strategies outlined in this article by primary care should facilitate access to and recovery from orthopedic surgery in the geriatric population.

More than 40 million surgeries are performed annually in the United States, of which > 18 million are orthopedic, including > 1 million emergency orthopedic surgeries and > 2 million joint replacements.^1-4 Notably, > 50% of patients undergoing orthopedic surgery are aged ≥ 65 years, a demographic shift driven by longer life expectancies and an increasing number of older adults remaining physically active for extended periods.⁵ Osteoarthritis, the most common joint disease, affects 10% of men and 18% of women aged > 60 years, often necessitating an orthopedic joint replacement.⁶ Perioperative morbidity and mortality are 2.9- to 6.7-times higher in older adults compared with younger adults.⁷ These risks include infection, venous thromboembolism (VTE), pressure ulcers, reduced mobility, and increased mortality. Due to the high incidence of these complications in older surgical patients, special perioperative protocols and considerations are needed when preparing an older patient for surgery. This review aims to establish concrete considerations and guidelines for perioperative management.

METHODOLOGY

A literature review of PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore identified research on perioperative challenges in geriatric orthopedic surgery. Keywords included geriatrics and orthopedic surgery, perioperative care in geriatric populations, and orthopedic perioperative care. Inclusion criteria were strictly defined to ensure relevance to the geriatric population, with studies focusing on patients aged ≥ 65 years. Exclusion criteria were applied to remove studies that did not involve geriatric populations or orthopedic surgeries or that lacked a clear perioperative focus. Studies were analyzed for design, interventions, and outcomes. Special attention was given to identifying common challenges and trends related to perioperative considerations. We developed a narrative report providing a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of perioperative care for geriatric orthopedic patients to offer practical recommendations for clinicians to use in their practice.

RESULTS

Consistent with the narrative review methodology described, the literature search yielded a broad range of publications addressing perioperative considerations in geriatric orthopedic patients. Articles were screened for relevance to patients aged ≥ 65 years undergoing orthopedic surgery and for applicability to perioperative optimization and postoperative outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in study design, population characteristics, and outcome reporting, findings are presented descriptively rather than being quantitatively pooled. Studies not focused on geriatric populations, orthopedic procedures, or perioperative management were excluded. Key themes included multimorbidity and comorbidity optimization, age-related physiologic changes, frailty assessment and fracture risk stratification, nutritional and bone health management, mechanism of injury considerations, prevention of postoperative complications, and the role of multidisciplinary perioperative care.

Unique Physiological Challenges

The aging process induces a range of physiological changes that can increase morbidity and mortality following surgery. One of the most essential elements to surgical recovery is wound healing, as impairments in this process can lead to adverse events, including infection, cosmetic deformity, and wound dehiscence. The general paradigm of aging involves cell senescence resulting in slower or disorganized functional capacity of these cells.⁸ While wound healing in older individuals was once thought to be defective, recent research has demonstrated that this process is not absent, but delayed.⁹

Wound healing is a tightly regulated and evolutionarily conserved process that proceeds through 3 main phases: inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. Re-epithelialization begins with the migration of epithelial cells from hair follicles, sweat glands, or wound margins (depending on wound depth) and is influenced by oxygen levels, moisture, and growth factors.⁹ Several characteristics of aged skin contribute to the delayed healing process. Aged skin has fewer hair follicles and eccrine sweat glands, as well as decreased follicle thickness.¹⁰ This results in fewer proliferating cells for wound healing and lower amounts of sebum production for skin moisture.¹¹ Furthermore, aged fibroblasts are fewer in number and less effective in synthesizing extracellular matrices, resulting in slower and less tensile wound healing.¹² Additionally, microvascular changes associated with aging result in disorganized vasculature, which impairs oxygen delivery to the wound bed and diminishes the influx of proinflammatory cells necessary for effective healing.¹³ These senescent traits of aged skin contribute to the delayed wound healing process found in geriatric patients. 

Compounding these age-related factors is the prevalence of multimorbidity, or coexisting chronic diagnoses, in 55% to 98% of older patients.¹⁴ Common comorbidities include peripheral arterial disease, chronic venous insufficiency, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, neoplasms, atherosclerotic disease, and hypertension. Older patients are more likely to be prescribed corticosteroids and chemotherapeutic agents that impair the function of inflammatory cells necessary for wound healing.^15,16 Additionally, decreased mobility is more common in geriatric patients, which can increase the risk of wound formation, particularly pressure ulcers.¹⁷

Perioperative Considerations

All surgical patients undergo a formal or informal preoperative evaluation to assess their fitness for surgery, with the goal of minimizing both anesthesia-related risks and postoperative complications. A widely used tool in this assessment is the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, which stratifies patients into 6 categories based on their medical history and overall health status.¹⁸ Classes range from healthy patients (Class I) to organ donors who are brain-dead (Class VI).

Cardiac optimization is an essential component of preoperative evaluation for older adults due to their higher risk of underlying cardiovascular disease.¹⁹ This process involves an in-depth review of the patient’s cardiac history, including the timing and nature of any prior interventions and the recurrence rate. Functional capacity is assessed through metabolic equivalents, where a threshold of > 4 metabolic equivalents (the ability to walk up a flight of stairs) is considered adequate for surgery. Risk is assessed based on the specific surgical procedure, and nonemergent orthopedic procedures are considered intermediate risk. If a patient is deemed high risk at any stage of this evaluation, further cardiac testing is indicated. 

Pulmonary optimization is typically necessary for geriatric patients, who are more likely to have conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease.^14,20 In patients without severe systemic lung disease, pulmonary optimization involves assessing the functional expiratory volume and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide. In addition, aggressive modification of risk factors, such as smoking cessation, is strongly recommended. 

Additional perioperative conditions are disease-specific and involve evaluation of comorbid illnesses and recognition of absolute contraindications to noncardiac surgery. For instance, an ejection fraction of < 35%, a history of myocardial infarction within 6 months, or active diabetic ketoacidosis are all absolute contraindications to elective surgery. For orthopedic procedures, additional contraindications include symptomatic bacteremia, active joint or local tissue infection, severe malnutrition, uncontrolled metabolic syndrome or chronic disease, untreated immunodeficiency, and active deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism.²¹

Bone Health and Nutrition

In the context of orthopedic surgery, the hallmark of clinically defined optimal bone health is a musculoskeletal system that provides the ability for pain-free functional and occupational tasks with an adequate capacity to withstand the mechanical forces imparted by everyday life. Back pain and arthritis are the fourth- and sixth-most common complaints in primary care, underscoring suboptimal bone health management in developed countries.²²

Optimizing bone health through proper nutrition is crucial in the perioperative management of geriatric orthopedic patients. The clinical diagnosis of malnutrition has well-studied associations with worse outcomes after orthopedic surgery, which include increased mortality, hospital length of stay, readmission rates, and health institution spending.^23-25 Some studies show that up to 60% of geriatric patients may be malnourished.²⁶ 

Regarding vitamin and mineral supplements, the general consensus before orthopedic surgery is that vitamins A, C, D, and E, and zinc are predictive in determining postoperative health.²⁷ However, Curtis et al state that therapy should be targeted at correcting relative deficiencies; supraphysiologic concentrations of these vitamins do not appear to be helpful.²⁷ This claim may merit serum studies to rule out deficiencies. Dietitians should be involved in the creation of a patient care plan in the spirit of multidisciplinary orthopedic surgery approaches, which have proven to result in superior patient outcomes.²⁸ Additionally, directive counseling should be provided when necessary. 

In patients with adequately managed nutrition, 7 to 10 days of diet optimization is typically sufficient, but patients with malnutrition may require sustained nutritional support for up to 6 weeks; a standardized time for adequate nutrition supplementation has not been identified.^25-27 Postoperative management is similar in older patients who are malnourished and those receiving adequate nutrition after orthopedic surgery, which typically involves 3 weeks of a high-protein diet.²⁶

Evaluating Mechanisms of Injury

Assessing the mechanism of injury (MOI) is essential to developing an appropriate and successful orthopedic treatment plan. MOI is typically categorized as low energy, which consists of ground-level falls and other minor trauma, or high energy, which can include motor vehicle crashes or falls from a height.²⁹ Unlike younger patients who typically experience trauma from high-energy MOIs, geriatric patients often sustain fractures from low-energy MOIs. The importance of assessing MOI for the geriatric population is magnified as it provides vital clues that not only help determine the nature of the injury, but also highlight underlying frailty, comorbidities, and potential complications. Weakness or deconditioning related to older age is often not discovered before trauma, which is why assessing the MOI can provide valuable information regarding overall patient health.³⁰

The MOI of trauma also is correlated with factors that influence postoperative recovery and overall prognosis (Figure). Falls comprise more than three-quarters of the MOI in geriatric patients with trauma, and > 90% of these falls are ground-level or other simple falls.³⁰ Falls secondary to an intrinsic disorder, rather than an extrinsic environmental hazard, are more common in geriatric patients.³¹ 

These events may be associated with an underlying medical condition, such as osteopenia, osteoporosis, or neuromuscular disorders, such as Parkinson disease.³² They may also be attributed to normal age-related changes, such as decreased visual acuity, reduced reaction time, or mild cognitive impairment.³⁰ An estimated 6% to 35% of geriatric patients who present to the emergency department have some degree of cognitive dysfunction.³³ Accordingly, a thorough understanding of the events leading up to injury is vital for the management of older patients. Knowing the specific circumstances of a fall can provide insight into the patient’s gait, balance, and need for further investigations such as cognitive screening or evaluation of home safety. This information can guide decisions regarding preoperative optimization of medications and postoperative rehabilitation interventions.

Frailty and Risk of Fracture

Frailty is a clinical syndrome defined by overall decreased capacity for the body’s adaptive changes to various stressors.³⁴ It is a common condition in geriatric populations due to cumulative degenerative changes and multisystem decline over a lifetime’s worth of disruptions to natural homeostasis.³⁴ In orthopedics, frailty typically refers to musculoskeletal durability and resilience in response to mechanical forces (ie, falls, trauma, and high-acceleration movements). Globally, > 200 million people have osteoporotic frailty, leading to 9 million hip fractures annually.³⁵ More than 30% of people aged ≥ 65 years fall ≥ 1 time per calendar year.³⁶

Assessing frailty in geriatric patients undergoing orthopedic surgery is vital, as it predisposes patients to higher rates of morbidity, mortality, and institutionalization, particularly from falls and resultant fragility fractures.^37-39 This is true for a wide range of orthopedic procedures, spanning elective to urgent surgeries and involving the axial and appendicular skeleton.^40,41 Given the high rates of fractures, subsequent patient morbidity, and financial burden on the health care system, effective frailty screening is essential. 

There are many strategies to assess frailty risk and subsequent fracture risk.⁴² Questionnaires or online medical calculators serve as easy-to-use tools for assessment of frailty or associated predictors of fragility fractures. Validated assessment tools are provided in Table 1. 

Dual-emission X-ray absorptiometry is a well-established way to determine bone density and establish fracture risk. The Fried Frailty Phenotype score and Short Performance Physical Battery test are clinically applicable methods of assessing frailty in older outpatient populations. Although these examinations focus on different aspects of the patient, they have moderate agreeability, are sensitive, and can be readily performed in the clinical setting as demonstrated by a > 90% patient participation rate for both methods.⁴² Finally, several serum studies can be predictive of frailty, the most readily modifiable of which are vitamin D3, ferritin, albumin, and calcium.⁴³ Although they are more invasive for the patient, serum studies can provide additional modifiable targets for perioperative optimization and contribute to risk stratification. 

Risk stratification should take place around 6 weeks before surgery, which should provide adequate time for rectification of preoperative barriers to elective surgical intervention—namely nutritional status. In cases of urgent or emergent procedures (ie, femoral neck fracture with concern for avascular necrosis of the femoral head), this may not be possible but should be conducted nonetheless for patient-specific postoperative rehabilitation and risk reduction.

Postoperative Complication Risks

Postoperative complications affect nearly 15% of geriatric orthopedic patients, highlighting the need for comprehensive preoperative evaluations to assess risk factors.⁴⁴ Age-related physiological changes, frailty, and comorbidities complicate recovery and management (Table 2).

Wound healing is impaired in older individuals due to suboptimal circulation and decreased oxygenation that is secondary to age-related changes, as well as the increased likelihood of comorbid conditions (eg, diabetes).⁷ Surgical site infections can be particularly malicious in geriatric patients, with a 4% incidence.^45,46 Hospitalization can be prolonged by a mean 2 weeks, which increases the risk of hospital-associated delirium and iatrogenic complications.⁴⁶ Both the mortality rate and costs associated with hospitalization are higher for older patients who develop surgical site infections compared with patients aged < 65 years, underscoring the importance of vigilant monitoring, early detection, and effective preoperative screening to identify and manage modifiable risk factors.⁴⁷ 

Postoperative delirium is another common complication of orthopedic surgery in the geriatric population, increasing morbidity and mortality. The incidence is reported to be as high as 53.3% in the trauma setting and 28.3% in the elective setting, indicating a need to assess patient risk preoperatively.^48,49 Several factors contribute to the high incidence of delirium, including advanced age, longer surgical durations, intraoperative hypotension and hypercapnia, pre-existing cognitive dysfunction, and postoperative sleep disorders.⁵⁰ 

VTE is another common cause of complications following orthopedic surgery. The development of DVT can lead to subsequent pulmonary embolism, which can be fatal. Orthopedic surgery patients are already at higher risk of DVT and VTE than other surgical patients, with an incidence as high as 40% to 60%, though it is frequently asymptomatic.^51,52 Geriatric patients may be more likely to have concurrent comorbidities that increase hypercoagulability.⁵³ Congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease are all more common in older individuals and can increase the risk of VTE by 2-fold.⁵³ While anticoagulation is the standard of care to prevent VTE after orthopedic surgery, geriatric patients require more careful monitoring due to the higher incidence of bleeding complications. Additionally, early postoperative mobilization is critical to reduce the risk of DVT without significantly increasing pain or causing other adverse events.⁵⁴ 

Respiratory complications are common after orthopedic surgery, particularly atelectasis and bronchospasm, which can result from intraoperative mechanical ventilation.⁵⁵ While these conditions are typically self-limiting, more severe respiratory issues such as pneumonia are a significant concern because they may lead to the need for mechanical ventilation and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). The more severe complications have an incidence of about 1% to 2% in orthopedic surgery patients.⁵⁶ Preventive strategies, such as respiratory physiotherapy and guided breathing exercises, are crucial to minimize perioperative pulmonary complications and promote optimal recovery. Addressing these challenges through early intervention is essential to improve outcomes.

Multidisciplinary Perioperative Care

Multidisciplinary care in orthopedic surgery involves collaborative management of patient care by general practitioners, surgeons, anesthesiologists, dietitians, physical and occupational therapists, inpatient health care practitioners (HCPs), and social services. The goal of this form of care is to provide a longitudinal sequence of health-optimization tactics that prepare a patient for surgery and give them the best chance of postoperative recovery.

Given that many aspects of geriatric health play a role in orthopedic postoperative outcomes, there are many preoperative factors to consider. As previously discussed, preoperative evaluation of geriatric patients should include nutritional and fragility screening to determine surgical candidacy and target modifiable risk factors for risk reduction. This screening can be conducted by primary care practitioners and orthopedic surgeons in an outpatient setting. A multidisciplinary approach benefits patients by decreasing time to surgery.³⁵ 

Several large studies have demonstrated the positive influence of a multidisciplinary approach on patient-oriented outcomes in orthopedic patients. Incorporation of this style of care in contrast to surgeon-led perioperative optimization leads to fewer floor and ICU admissions, shorter lengths of stay, and decreased mortality rates.^35,57 These findings are broadly applicable to a wide range of orthopedic surgeries and even surgeries outside of the musculoskeletal system.^58,59 In addition, this strategy has demonstrated reduced in-hospital health care costs due to shorter lengths of stay and fewer ICU admissions. Physical and occupational therapy also have irreplaceable roles in outcomes after orthopedic surgeries. They have independently been shown to decrease pain, increase range of motion, and increase functionality in daily life.⁶⁰ These aspects of recovery are essential for geriatric well-being.

Screening Tools

The World Health Organization FRAX fracture risk assessment tool (www.fraxplus.org/calculation-tool) was developed to identify patients at high risk of fracture and subsequent complications and to guide clinical decision-making regarding pharmacologic interventions.⁶¹ FRAX calculates the 10-year probability of fracture based on demographic factors, such as age and body mass index, clinical measures (eg, femoral neck bone mineral density), and risk factors (eg, prior fragility fractures, substance use history, and prolonged glucocorticoid use).⁶¹ The online tool is easy to use, making it a valuable resource for assessing fracture risk and determining appropriate treatment strategies.

The fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, loss of weight (FRAIL) scale assesses frailty in older adults. The scale classifies patients into 3 categories: robust, prefrail, and frail. The frail category is associated with an increased frequency of hip fracture and an elevated ASA class.⁶² Additionally, the FRAIL scale has demonstrated value in predicting hospital length of stay and the risk of postoperative complications.⁶² It also has shown utility in quantifying frailty status, which is traditionally challenging to assess systematically.⁶³

The Mini-Cog is commonly used in geriatric populations to screen for cognitive impairment. Preoperative Mini-Cog screening has been shown to predict the development of postoperative complications.⁶⁴ Geriatric patients who screened positive for cognitive impairment prior to orthopedic surgery were more likely to develop postoperative delirium, require alternative discharge disposition, and have a longer hospital length of stay.⁶⁴ Mini-Cog serves as an important preoperative tool for identifying patients who may benefit from closer postoperative monitoring and tailored care.

The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional evaluation that has been validated for use in geriatric patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.⁶⁵ The CGA assesses functional status and the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), such as eating, dressing, and ambulating. Poor ADLs are associated with increased risk of falls and cardiopulmonary complications. The CGA allows HCPs to identify patients at higher risk of complications and tailor interventions that optimize functional recovery during the perioperative period.

Nutritional screening is another component of preoperative evaluation in older adults undergoing orthopedic surgery. The Perioperative Nutrition Screen is a preoperative phone assessment of unintentional weight loss in the past 6 months.⁶⁶ Patients who screen positive are asked to come in for a preoperative visit with a registered dietitian who can further evaluate the nutritional status of the patient. 

The Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, and Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 have all been validated for use in older patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Among these, the MNA-SF has demonstrated superior utility in predicting hospital readmission and mortality.⁶⁷ Given the established links between malnutrition and poor surgical outcomes, routine nutritional screening is important for identifying geriatric patients who may require preoperative nutritional interventions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Perioperative management of geriatric patients undergoing orthopedic surgery requires an assessment and strategy focused on risk stratification, patient optimization, and mitigation of potential complications and mortality. Due to the complexity and comprehensive nature of an optimal perioperative plan, creating the plan early is essential to ensure adequate time for patient optimization and care coordination.

Nutrition plays a critical role in the success of surgical procedures, and orthopedics is no exception. Extra care should be taken to preoperatively optimize patient bone health before surgical intervention to enhance recovery and reduce the risk of complications. After an appropriate patient history and clinical picture are gathered, screening tools should be used on a case-by-case basis to further characterize comorbid conditions that may contribute to suboptimal outcomes. Additionally, given the proven association between frailty and fracture risk, frailty serves as a readily quantifiable predictor of patient-oriented outcomes. This should be assessed preoperatively with appropriate risk-stratification tools to determine appropriate postoperative measures to prevent morbidity and mortality. 

Orthopedic surgery is increasingly common in geriatric patients, who face higher perioperative risks due to age-related physiological changes, multimorbidity, and frailty. Optimizing preoperative assessment and adopting a multidisciplinary approach—integrating surgeons, anesthesiologists, physical therapists, and dietitians—can improve outcomes, reduce complications, and enhance recovery. The successful use of the tools and strategies outlined in this article by primary care should facilitate access to and recovery from orthopedic surgery in the geriatric population.

More than 40 million surgeries are performed annually in the United States, of which > 18 million are orthopedic, including > 1 million emergency orthopedic surgeries and > 2 million joint replacements.^1-4 Notably, > 50% of patients undergoing orthopedic surgery are aged ≥ 65 years, a demographic shift driven by longer life expectancies and an increasing number of older adults remaining physically active for extended periods.⁵ Osteoarthritis, the most common joint disease, affects 10% of men and 18% of women aged > 60 years, often necessitating an orthopedic joint replacement.⁶ Perioperative morbidity and mortality are 2.9- to 6.7-times higher in older adults compared with younger adults.⁷ These risks include infection, venous thromboembolism (VTE), pressure ulcers, reduced mobility, and increased mortality. Due to the high incidence of these complications in older surgical patients, special perioperative protocols and considerations are needed when preparing an older patient for surgery. This review aims to establish concrete considerations and guidelines for perioperative management.

METHODOLOGY

A literature review of PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore identified research on perioperative challenges in geriatric orthopedic surgery. Keywords included geriatrics and orthopedic surgery, perioperative care in geriatric populations, and orthopedic perioperative care. Inclusion criteria were strictly defined to ensure relevance to the geriatric population, with studies focusing on patients aged ≥ 65 years. Exclusion criteria were applied to remove studies that did not involve geriatric populations or orthopedic surgeries or that lacked a clear perioperative focus. Studies were analyzed for design, interventions, and outcomes. Special attention was given to identifying common challenges and trends related to perioperative considerations. We developed a narrative report providing a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of perioperative care for geriatric orthopedic patients to offer practical recommendations for clinicians to use in their practice.

RESULTS

Consistent with the narrative review methodology described, the literature search yielded a broad range of publications addressing perioperative considerations in geriatric orthopedic patients. Articles were screened for relevance to patients aged ≥ 65 years undergoing orthopedic surgery and for applicability to perioperative optimization and postoperative outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in study design, population characteristics, and outcome reporting, findings are presented descriptively rather than being quantitatively pooled. Studies not focused on geriatric populations, orthopedic procedures, or perioperative management were excluded. Key themes included multimorbidity and comorbidity optimization, age-related physiologic changes, frailty assessment and fracture risk stratification, nutritional and bone health management, mechanism of injury considerations, prevention of postoperative complications, and the role of multidisciplinary perioperative care.

Unique Physiological Challenges

The aging process induces a range of physiological changes that can increase morbidity and mortality following surgery. One of the most essential elements to surgical recovery is wound healing, as impairments in this process can lead to adverse events, including infection, cosmetic deformity, and wound dehiscence. The general paradigm of aging involves cell senescence resulting in slower or disorganized functional capacity of these cells.⁸ While wound healing in older individuals was once thought to be defective, recent research has demonstrated that this process is not absent, but delayed.⁹

Wound healing is a tightly regulated and evolutionarily conserved process that proceeds through 3 main phases: inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. Re-epithelialization begins with the migration of epithelial cells from hair follicles, sweat glands, or wound margins (depending on wound depth) and is influenced by oxygen levels, moisture, and growth factors.⁹ Several characteristics of aged skin contribute to the delayed healing process. Aged skin has fewer hair follicles and eccrine sweat glands, as well as decreased follicle thickness.¹⁰ This results in fewer proliferating cells for wound healing and lower amounts of sebum production for skin moisture.¹¹ Furthermore, aged fibroblasts are fewer in number and less effective in synthesizing extracellular matrices, resulting in slower and less tensile wound healing.¹² Additionally, microvascular changes associated with aging result in disorganized vasculature, which impairs oxygen delivery to the wound bed and diminishes the influx of proinflammatory cells necessary for effective healing.¹³ These senescent traits of aged skin contribute to the delayed wound healing process found in geriatric patients. 

Compounding these age-related factors is the prevalence of multimorbidity, or coexisting chronic diagnoses, in 55% to 98% of older patients.¹⁴ Common comorbidities include peripheral arterial disease, chronic venous insufficiency, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, neoplasms, atherosclerotic disease, and hypertension. Older patients are more likely to be prescribed corticosteroids and chemotherapeutic agents that impair the function of inflammatory cells necessary for wound healing.^15,16 Additionally, decreased mobility is more common in geriatric patients, which can increase the risk of wound formation, particularly pressure ulcers.¹⁷

Perioperative Considerations

All surgical patients undergo a formal or informal preoperative evaluation to assess their fitness for surgery, with the goal of minimizing both anesthesia-related risks and postoperative complications. A widely used tool in this assessment is the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, which stratifies patients into 6 categories based on their medical history and overall health status.¹⁸ Classes range from healthy patients (Class I) to organ donors who are brain-dead (Class VI).

Cardiac optimization is an essential component of preoperative evaluation for older adults due to their higher risk of underlying cardiovascular disease.¹⁹ This process involves an in-depth review of the patient’s cardiac history, including the timing and nature of any prior interventions and the recurrence rate. Functional capacity is assessed through metabolic equivalents, where a threshold of > 4 metabolic equivalents (the ability to walk up a flight of stairs) is considered adequate for surgery. Risk is assessed based on the specific surgical procedure, and nonemergent orthopedic procedures are considered intermediate risk. If a patient is deemed high risk at any stage of this evaluation, further cardiac testing is indicated. 

Pulmonary optimization is typically necessary for geriatric patients, who are more likely to have conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease.^14,20 In patients without severe systemic lung disease, pulmonary optimization involves assessing the functional expiratory volume and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide. In addition, aggressive modification of risk factors, such as smoking cessation, is strongly recommended. 

Additional perioperative conditions are disease-specific and involve evaluation of comorbid illnesses and recognition of absolute contraindications to noncardiac surgery. For instance, an ejection fraction of < 35%, a history of myocardial infarction within 6 months, or active diabetic ketoacidosis are all absolute contraindications to elective surgery. For orthopedic procedures, additional contraindications include symptomatic bacteremia, active joint or local tissue infection, severe malnutrition, uncontrolled metabolic syndrome or chronic disease, untreated immunodeficiency, and active deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism.²¹

Bone Health and Nutrition

In the context of orthopedic surgery, the hallmark of clinically defined optimal bone health is a musculoskeletal system that provides the ability for pain-free functional and occupational tasks with an adequate capacity to withstand the mechanical forces imparted by everyday life. Back pain and arthritis are the fourth- and sixth-most common complaints in primary care, underscoring suboptimal bone health management in developed countries.²²

Optimizing bone health through proper nutrition is crucial in the perioperative management of geriatric orthopedic patients. The clinical diagnosis of malnutrition has well-studied associations with worse outcomes after orthopedic surgery, which include increased mortality, hospital length of stay, readmission rates, and health institution spending.^23-25 Some studies show that up to 60% of geriatric patients may be malnourished.²⁶ 

Regarding vitamin and mineral supplements, the general consensus before orthopedic surgery is that vitamins A, C, D, and E, and zinc are predictive in determining postoperative health.²⁷ However, Curtis et al state that therapy should be targeted at correcting relative deficiencies; supraphysiologic concentrations of these vitamins do not appear to be helpful.²⁷ This claim may merit serum studies to rule out deficiencies. Dietitians should be involved in the creation of a patient care plan in the spirit of multidisciplinary orthopedic surgery approaches, which have proven to result in superior patient outcomes.²⁸ Additionally, directive counseling should be provided when necessary. 

In patients with adequately managed nutrition, 7 to 10 days of diet optimization is typically sufficient, but patients with malnutrition may require sustained nutritional support for up to 6 weeks; a standardized time for adequate nutrition supplementation has not been identified.^25-27 Postoperative management is similar in older patients who are malnourished and those receiving adequate nutrition after orthopedic surgery, which typically involves 3 weeks of a high-protein diet.²⁶

Evaluating Mechanisms of Injury

Assessing the mechanism of injury (MOI) is essential to developing an appropriate and successful orthopedic treatment plan. MOI is typically categorized as low energy, which consists of ground-level falls and other minor trauma, or high energy, which can include motor vehicle crashes or falls from a height.²⁹ Unlike younger patients who typically experience trauma from high-energy MOIs, geriatric patients often sustain fractures from low-energy MOIs. The importance of assessing MOI for the geriatric population is magnified as it provides vital clues that not only help determine the nature of the injury, but also highlight underlying frailty, comorbidities, and potential complications. Weakness or deconditioning related to older age is often not discovered before trauma, which is why assessing the MOI can provide valuable information regarding overall patient health.³⁰

The MOI of trauma also is correlated with factors that influence postoperative recovery and overall prognosis (Figure). Falls comprise more than three-quarters of the MOI in geriatric patients with trauma, and > 90% of these falls are ground-level or other simple falls.³⁰ Falls secondary to an intrinsic disorder, rather than an extrinsic environmental hazard, are more common in geriatric patients.³¹ 

These events may be associated with an underlying medical condition, such as osteopenia, osteoporosis, or neuromuscular disorders, such as Parkinson disease.³² They may also be attributed to normal age-related changes, such as decreased visual acuity, reduced reaction time, or mild cognitive impairment.³⁰ An estimated 6% to 35% of geriatric patients who present to the emergency department have some degree of cognitive dysfunction.³³ Accordingly, a thorough understanding of the events leading up to injury is vital for the management of older patients. Knowing the specific circumstances of a fall can provide insight into the patient’s gait, balance, and need for further investigations such as cognitive screening or evaluation of home safety. This information can guide decisions regarding preoperative optimization of medications and postoperative rehabilitation interventions.

Frailty and Risk of Fracture

Frailty is a clinical syndrome defined by overall decreased capacity for the body’s adaptive changes to various stressors.³⁴ It is a common condition in geriatric populations due to cumulative degenerative changes and multisystem decline over a lifetime’s worth of disruptions to natural homeostasis.³⁴ In orthopedics, frailty typically refers to musculoskeletal durability and resilience in response to mechanical forces (ie, falls, trauma, and high-acceleration movements). Globally, > 200 million people have osteoporotic frailty, leading to 9 million hip fractures annually.³⁵ More than 30% of people aged ≥ 65 years fall ≥ 1 time per calendar year.³⁶

Assessing frailty in geriatric patients undergoing orthopedic surgery is vital, as it predisposes patients to higher rates of morbidity, mortality, and institutionalization, particularly from falls and resultant fragility fractures.^37-39 This is true for a wide range of orthopedic procedures, spanning elective to urgent surgeries and involving the axial and appendicular skeleton.^40,41 Given the high rates of fractures, subsequent patient morbidity, and financial burden on the health care system, effective frailty screening is essential. 

There are many strategies to assess frailty risk and subsequent fracture risk.⁴² Questionnaires or online medical calculators serve as easy-to-use tools for assessment of frailty or associated predictors of fragility fractures. Validated assessment tools are provided in Table 1. 

Dual-emission X-ray absorptiometry is a well-established way to determine bone density and establish fracture risk. The Fried Frailty Phenotype score and Short Performance Physical Battery test are clinically applicable methods of assessing frailty in older outpatient populations. Although these examinations focus on different aspects of the patient, they have moderate agreeability, are sensitive, and can be readily performed in the clinical setting as demonstrated by a > 90% patient participation rate for both methods.⁴² Finally, several serum studies can be predictive of frailty, the most readily modifiable of which are vitamin D3, ferritin, albumin, and calcium.⁴³ Although they are more invasive for the patient, serum studies can provide additional modifiable targets for perioperative optimization and contribute to risk stratification. 

Risk stratification should take place around 6 weeks before surgery, which should provide adequate time for rectification of preoperative barriers to elective surgical intervention—namely nutritional status. In cases of urgent or emergent procedures (ie, femoral neck fracture with concern for avascular necrosis of the femoral head), this may not be possible but should be conducted nonetheless for patient-specific postoperative rehabilitation and risk reduction.

Postoperative Complication Risks

Postoperative complications affect nearly 15% of geriatric orthopedic patients, highlighting the need for comprehensive preoperative evaluations to assess risk factors.⁴⁴ Age-related physiological changes, frailty, and comorbidities complicate recovery and management (Table 2).

Wound healing is impaired in older individuals due to suboptimal circulation and decreased oxygenation that is secondary to age-related changes, as well as the increased likelihood of comorbid conditions (eg, diabetes).⁷ Surgical site infections can be particularly malicious in geriatric patients, with a 4% incidence.^45,46 Hospitalization can be prolonged by a mean 2 weeks, which increases the risk of hospital-associated delirium and iatrogenic complications.⁴⁶ Both the mortality rate and costs associated with hospitalization are higher for older patients who develop surgical site infections compared with patients aged < 65 years, underscoring the importance of vigilant monitoring, early detection, and effective preoperative screening to identify and manage modifiable risk factors.⁴⁷ 

Postoperative delirium is another common complication of orthopedic surgery in the geriatric population, increasing morbidity and mortality. The incidence is reported to be as high as 53.3% in the trauma setting and 28.3% in the elective setting, indicating a need to assess patient risk preoperatively.^48,49 Several factors contribute to the high incidence of delirium, including advanced age, longer surgical durations, intraoperative hypotension and hypercapnia, pre-existing cognitive dysfunction, and postoperative sleep disorders.⁵⁰ 

VTE is another common cause of complications following orthopedic surgery. The development of DVT can lead to subsequent pulmonary embolism, which can be fatal. Orthopedic surgery patients are already at higher risk of DVT and VTE than other surgical patients, with an incidence as high as 40% to 60%, though it is frequently asymptomatic.^51,52 Geriatric patients may be more likely to have concurrent comorbidities that increase hypercoagulability.⁵³ Congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease are all more common in older individuals and can increase the risk of VTE by 2-fold.⁵³ While anticoagulation is the standard of care to prevent VTE after orthopedic surgery, geriatric patients require more careful monitoring due to the higher incidence of bleeding complications. Additionally, early postoperative mobilization is critical to reduce the risk of DVT without significantly increasing pain or causing other adverse events.⁵⁴ 

Respiratory complications are common after orthopedic surgery, particularly atelectasis and bronchospasm, which can result from intraoperative mechanical ventilation.⁵⁵ While these conditions are typically self-limiting, more severe respiratory issues such as pneumonia are a significant concern because they may lead to the need for mechanical ventilation and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). The more severe complications have an incidence of about 1% to 2% in orthopedic surgery patients.⁵⁶ Preventive strategies, such as respiratory physiotherapy and guided breathing exercises, are crucial to minimize perioperative pulmonary complications and promote optimal recovery. Addressing these challenges through early intervention is essential to improve outcomes.

Multidisciplinary Perioperative Care

Multidisciplinary care in orthopedic surgery involves collaborative management of patient care by general practitioners, surgeons, anesthesiologists, dietitians, physical and occupational therapists, inpatient health care practitioners (HCPs), and social services. The goal of this form of care is to provide a longitudinal sequence of health-optimization tactics that prepare a patient for surgery and give them the best chance of postoperative recovery.

Given that many aspects of geriatric health play a role in orthopedic postoperative outcomes, there are many preoperative factors to consider. As previously discussed, preoperative evaluation of geriatric patients should include nutritional and fragility screening to determine surgical candidacy and target modifiable risk factors for risk reduction. This screening can be conducted by primary care practitioners and orthopedic surgeons in an outpatient setting. A multidisciplinary approach benefits patients by decreasing time to surgery.³⁵ 

Several large studies have demonstrated the positive influence of a multidisciplinary approach on patient-oriented outcomes in orthopedic patients. Incorporation of this style of care in contrast to surgeon-led perioperative optimization leads to fewer floor and ICU admissions, shorter lengths of stay, and decreased mortality rates.^35,57 These findings are broadly applicable to a wide range of orthopedic surgeries and even surgeries outside of the musculoskeletal system.^58,59 In addition, this strategy has demonstrated reduced in-hospital health care costs due to shorter lengths of stay and fewer ICU admissions. Physical and occupational therapy also have irreplaceable roles in outcomes after orthopedic surgeries. They have independently been shown to decrease pain, increase range of motion, and increase functionality in daily life.⁶⁰ These aspects of recovery are essential for geriatric well-being.

Screening Tools

The World Health Organization FRAX fracture risk assessment tool (www.fraxplus.org/calculation-tool) was developed to identify patients at high risk of fracture and subsequent complications and to guide clinical decision-making regarding pharmacologic interventions.⁶¹ FRAX calculates the 10-year probability of fracture based on demographic factors, such as age and body mass index, clinical measures (eg, femoral neck bone mineral density), and risk factors (eg, prior fragility fractures, substance use history, and prolonged glucocorticoid use).⁶¹ The online tool is easy to use, making it a valuable resource for assessing fracture risk and determining appropriate treatment strategies.

The fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, loss of weight (FRAIL) scale assesses frailty in older adults. The scale classifies patients into 3 categories: robust, prefrail, and frail. The frail category is associated with an increased frequency of hip fracture and an elevated ASA class.⁶² Additionally, the FRAIL scale has demonstrated value in predicting hospital length of stay and the risk of postoperative complications.⁶² It also has shown utility in quantifying frailty status, which is traditionally challenging to assess systematically.⁶³

The Mini-Cog is commonly used in geriatric populations to screen for cognitive impairment. Preoperative Mini-Cog screening has been shown to predict the development of postoperative complications.⁶⁴ Geriatric patients who screened positive for cognitive impairment prior to orthopedic surgery were more likely to develop postoperative delirium, require alternative discharge disposition, and have a longer hospital length of stay.⁶⁴ Mini-Cog serves as an important preoperative tool for identifying patients who may benefit from closer postoperative monitoring and tailored care.

The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional evaluation that has been validated for use in geriatric patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.⁶⁵ The CGA assesses functional status and the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), such as eating, dressing, and ambulating. Poor ADLs are associated with increased risk of falls and cardiopulmonary complications. The CGA allows HCPs to identify patients at higher risk of complications and tailor interventions that optimize functional recovery during the perioperative period.

Nutritional screening is another component of preoperative evaluation in older adults undergoing orthopedic surgery. The Perioperative Nutrition Screen is a preoperative phone assessment of unintentional weight loss in the past 6 months.⁶⁶ Patients who screen positive are asked to come in for a preoperative visit with a registered dietitian who can further evaluate the nutritional status of the patient. 

The Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, and Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 have all been validated for use in older patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Among these, the MNA-SF has demonstrated superior utility in predicting hospital readmission and mortality.⁶⁷ Given the established links between malnutrition and poor surgical outcomes, routine nutritional screening is important for identifying geriatric patients who may require preoperative nutritional interventions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Perioperative management of geriatric patients undergoing orthopedic surgery requires an assessment and strategy focused on risk stratification, patient optimization, and mitigation of potential complications and mortality. Due to the complexity and comprehensive nature of an optimal perioperative plan, creating the plan early is essential to ensure adequate time for patient optimization and care coordination.

Nutrition plays a critical role in the success of surgical procedures, and orthopedics is no exception. Extra care should be taken to preoperatively optimize patient bone health before surgical intervention to enhance recovery and reduce the risk of complications. After an appropriate patient history and clinical picture are gathered, screening tools should be used on a case-by-case basis to further characterize comorbid conditions that may contribute to suboptimal outcomes. Additionally, given the proven association between frailty and fracture risk, frailty serves as a readily quantifiable predictor of patient-oriented outcomes. This should be assessed preoperatively with appropriate risk-stratification tools to determine appropriate postoperative measures to prevent morbidity and mortality. 

Orthopedic surgery is increasingly common in geriatric patients, who face higher perioperative risks due to age-related physiological changes, multimorbidity, and frailty. Optimizing preoperative assessment and adopting a multidisciplinary approach—integrating surgeons, anesthesiologists, physical therapists, and dietitians—can improve outcomes, reduce complications, and enhance recovery. The successful use of the tools and strategies outlined in this article by primary care should facilitate access to and recovery from orthopedic surgery in the geriatric population.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in about 1% to 2% of joint replacements. ¹ Risk factors include immunosuppression, diabetes, chronic illnesses, and prolonged operative time.² Bacterial infections constitute most of these infections, while fungal pathogens account for about 1%. Candida (C.) species, predominantly C. albicans, are responsible for most PJIs.^1,3 In contrast, C. glabrata is a rare cause of fungal PJI, with only 18 PJI cases currently reported in the literature.⁴ C. glabrata PJI occurs more frequently among immunosuppressed patients and is associated with a higher treatment failure rate despite antifungal therapy.⁵ Treatment of fungal PJI is often complicated, involving multiple surgical debridements, prolonged antifungal therapy, and in some cases, prosthesis removal.⁶ However, given the rarity of C. glabrata as a PJI pathogen, no standardized treatment guidelines exist, leading to potential delays in diagnosis and tailored treatment.^7,8

CASE PRESENTATION

A male Vietnam veteran aged 75 years presented to the emergency department in July 2023 with a fluid collection over his left hip surgical incision site. The patient had a complex medical history that included chronic kidney disease, well-controlled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. His history was further complicated by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with hepatocellular carcinoma that was treated with transarterial radioembolization and yttrium-90. The patient had undergone a left total hip arthroplasty in 1996 and subsequent open reduction and internal fixation about 9 months prior to his presentation. The patient reported the fluid had been present for about 6 weeks, while he received outpatient monitoring by the orthopedic surgery service. He sought emergency care after noting a moderate amount of purulent discharge on his clothing originating from his hip. In the week prior to admission, the patient observed progressive erythema, warmth, and tenderness over the incision site. Despite these symptoms, the patient remained ambulatory and able to walk long distances with the use of an assistive device.

Upon presentation, the patient was afebrile and normotensive. Laboratory testing revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 77 mm/h (reference range, 0-20 mm/h) and a C-reactive protein of 9.8 mg/L (reference range, 0-2.5 mg/L), suggesting an underlying infectious process. A physical examination revealed a well-healed incision over the left hip with a poorly defined area of fluctuance and evidence of wound dehiscence. The left lower extremity was swollen with 2+ pitting edema, but tenderness was localized to the incision site. Magnetic resonance imaging of the left hip revealed a multiloculated fluid collection abutting the left greater trochanter with extension to the skin surface and inferior extension along the entire length of the surgical fixation hardware (Figure).

Upon admission, orthopedic surgery performed a bedside aspiration of the fluid collection. Samples were sent for analysis, including cell count and bacterial and fungal cultures. Initial blood cultures were sterile. Due to concerns for a bacterial infection, the patient was started on empiric intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone 2 g/day and IV vancomycin 1250 mg/day. Synovial fluid analysis revealed an elevated white blood cell count of 45,000/ìL, but bacterial cultures were negative. Five days after admission, the fungal culture from the left hip wound was notable for presence of C. glabrata, prompting an infectious diseases (ID) consultation. IV micafungin 100 mg/day was initiated as empiric antifungal therapy.

ID and orthopedic surgery teams determined that a combined medical and surgical approach would be best suited for infection control. They proposed 2 main approaches: complete hardware replacement with washout, which carried a higher morbidity risk but a better chance of infection resolution, or partial hardware replacement with washout, which was associated with a lower morbidity risk but a higher risk of infection persistence and recurrence. This decision was particularly challenging for the patient, who prioritized maintaining his functional status, including his ability to continue dancing for pleasure. The patient opted for a more conservative approach, electing to proceed with antifungal therapy and debridement while retaining the prosthetic joint.

After 11 days of hospitalization, the patient was discharged with a peripherally inserted central catheter for long-term antifungal infusions of micafungin 150 mg/day at home. Fungal sensitivity test results several days after discharge confirmed susceptibility to micafungin.

About 2 weeks after discharge, the patient underwent debridement and implant retention (DAIR). Wound cultures were positive for C. glabrata, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum. Based on susceptibilities, he completed a 2-month course of IV micafungin 150 mg daily and daptomycin 750 mg daily, followed by an oral suppressive regimen consisting of doxycycline 100 mg twice daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 2 g twice daily, and fluconazole initially 800 mg daily adjusted to 400 mg daily. The patient continued wound management with twice-daily dressing changes.

Nine months after DAIR, the patient remained on suppressive antifungal and antibacterial therapy. He continued to experience serous drainage from the wound, which greatly affected his quality of life. After discussion with his family and the orthopedic surgery team, he agreed to proceed with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving prosthetic explant and antibiotic spacer placement. However, the surgery was postponed due to findings of anemia (hemoglobin, 8.9 g/dL) and thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 73 x 10³/λL). At the time of this report, the patient was being monitored closely with his multidisciplinary care team for the planned orthopedic procedure.

DISCUSSION

PJI is the most common cause of primary hip arthroplasty failure; however, fungal species only make up about 1% of PJIs.^3,9-11 Patients are typically immunocompromised, undergoing antineoplastic therapies for malignancy, or have other comorbid conditions such as diabetes.^12,13 C. glabrata presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge as it is not only rare but also notorious for its resistance to common antifungal agents. C. glabrata is known to develop multidrug resistance through the rapid accumulation of genomic mutations.¹⁴ Its propensity towards forming protective biofilm also arms it with intrinsic resistance to agents like fluconazole.¹⁵ Furthermore, based on a review of the available reports in the literature, C. glabrata PJIs are often insidious and present with symptoms closely mimicking those of bacterial PJIs, as it did in the patient in this case.¹⁶

Synovial fluid analysis, fungal cultures, and sensitivity testing are paramount for ensuring proper diagnosis for fungal PJI. The patient in this case was empirically treated with micafungin based on recommendations from the ID team. When the sensitivities results were reviewed, the same antifungal therapy was continued. Echinocandins have a favorable toxicity profile in long-term use, as well as efficacy against biofilm-producing organisms like C. glabrata.^17,18

While there are a few cases citing DAIR as a feasible surgical strategy for treating fungal PJI, more recent studies have reported greater success with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving some combination of debridement, placement of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers, and partial or total exchange of the infected prosthetic joint.^4,19-23 In this case, complete hardware replacement would have offered the patient the most favorable outlook for eliminating this fungal infection. However, given the patient’s advanced age, significant underlying comorbidities, and functional status, medical management with antifungal therapy and DAIR was favored.

Based on the discussion from the 6-month follow-up visit, the patient was experiencing progressive and persistent wound drainage and frequent dressing changes, highlighting the limitations of medical management for PJI in the setting of retained prosthesis. If the patient ultimately proceeds with a more invasive surgical intervention, another important consideration will be the likelihood of fungal PJI recurrence. At present, fungal PJI recurrence rates following antifungal and surgical treatment have been reported to range between 0% to 50%, which is too imprecise to be considered clinically useful.^22-24

Given the ambiguity surrounding management guidelines and limited treatment options, it is crucial to emphasize the timeline of this patient’s clinical presentation and subsequent course of treatment. Upon presentation to the ED in late July, fungal PJI was considered less likely. Initial blood cultures from presentation were negative, which is common with PJIs. It was not until 5 days later that the left hip wound culture showed moderate growth of C. glabrata. Identifying a PJI is clinically challenging due to the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria. However, timely identification and diagnosis of fungal PJI with appropriate antifungal therapy, in patients with limited curative options due to comorbidities, can significantly improve quality of life and overall outcomes.²⁵ Routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures are not currently recommended in PJI guidelines, but this case illustrates it is imperative in immunocompromised hosts.²⁶

This case and the current paucity of similar cases in the literature stress the importance of clinicians publishing their experience in the management of fungal PJI. We strongly recommend that clinicians approach each suspected PJI with careful consideration of the patient’s unique risk factors, comorbidities, and goals of care, when deciding on a curative vs suppressive approach to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report highlights the importance of considering fungal pathogens for PJIs, especially in high-risk patients, the value of obtaining fungal cultures, the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach, the role of antifungal susceptibility testing, and consideration for the feasibility of a surgical intervention. It underscores the challenges in diagnosis and treatment of C. glabrata-associated PJI, emphasizing the importance of clinician experience-sharing in developing evidence-based management strategies. As the understanding of fungal PJI evolves, continued research and clinical data collection remain crucial for improving patient outcomes in the management of these complex cases.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in about 1% to 2% of joint replacements. ¹ Risk factors include immunosuppression, diabetes, chronic illnesses, and prolonged operative time.² Bacterial infections constitute most of these infections, while fungal pathogens account for about 1%. Candida (C.) species, predominantly C. albicans, are responsible for most PJIs.^1,3 In contrast, C. glabrata is a rare cause of fungal PJI, with only 18 PJI cases currently reported in the literature.⁴ C. glabrata PJI occurs more frequently among immunosuppressed patients and is associated with a higher treatment failure rate despite antifungal therapy.⁵ Treatment of fungal PJI is often complicated, involving multiple surgical debridements, prolonged antifungal therapy, and in some cases, prosthesis removal.⁶ However, given the rarity of C. glabrata as a PJI pathogen, no standardized treatment guidelines exist, leading to potential delays in diagnosis and tailored treatment.^7,8

CASE PRESENTATION

A male Vietnam veteran aged 75 years presented to the emergency department in July 2023 with a fluid collection over his left hip surgical incision site. The patient had a complex medical history that included chronic kidney disease, well-controlled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. His history was further complicated by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with hepatocellular carcinoma that was treated with transarterial radioembolization and yttrium-90. The patient had undergone a left total hip arthroplasty in 1996 and subsequent open reduction and internal fixation about 9 months prior to his presentation. The patient reported the fluid had been present for about 6 weeks, while he received outpatient monitoring by the orthopedic surgery service. He sought emergency care after noting a moderate amount of purulent discharge on his clothing originating from his hip. In the week prior to admission, the patient observed progressive erythema, warmth, and tenderness over the incision site. Despite these symptoms, the patient remained ambulatory and able to walk long distances with the use of an assistive device.

Upon presentation, the patient was afebrile and normotensive. Laboratory testing revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 77 mm/h (reference range, 0-20 mm/h) and a C-reactive protein of 9.8 mg/L (reference range, 0-2.5 mg/L), suggesting an underlying infectious process. A physical examination revealed a well-healed incision over the left hip with a poorly defined area of fluctuance and evidence of wound dehiscence. The left lower extremity was swollen with 2+ pitting edema, but tenderness was localized to the incision site. Magnetic resonance imaging of the left hip revealed a multiloculated fluid collection abutting the left greater trochanter with extension to the skin surface and inferior extension along the entire length of the surgical fixation hardware (Figure).

Upon admission, orthopedic surgery performed a bedside aspiration of the fluid collection. Samples were sent for analysis, including cell count and bacterial and fungal cultures. Initial blood cultures were sterile. Due to concerns for a bacterial infection, the patient was started on empiric intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone 2 g/day and IV vancomycin 1250 mg/day. Synovial fluid analysis revealed an elevated white blood cell count of 45,000/ìL, but bacterial cultures were negative. Five days after admission, the fungal culture from the left hip wound was notable for presence of C. glabrata, prompting an infectious diseases (ID) consultation. IV micafungin 100 mg/day was initiated as empiric antifungal therapy.

ID and orthopedic surgery teams determined that a combined medical and surgical approach would be best suited for infection control. They proposed 2 main approaches: complete hardware replacement with washout, which carried a higher morbidity risk but a better chance of infection resolution, or partial hardware replacement with washout, which was associated with a lower morbidity risk but a higher risk of infection persistence and recurrence. This decision was particularly challenging for the patient, who prioritized maintaining his functional status, including his ability to continue dancing for pleasure. The patient opted for a more conservative approach, electing to proceed with antifungal therapy and debridement while retaining the prosthetic joint.

After 11 days of hospitalization, the patient was discharged with a peripherally inserted central catheter for long-term antifungal infusions of micafungin 150 mg/day at home. Fungal sensitivity test results several days after discharge confirmed susceptibility to micafungin.

About 2 weeks after discharge, the patient underwent debridement and implant retention (DAIR). Wound cultures were positive for C. glabrata, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum. Based on susceptibilities, he completed a 2-month course of IV micafungin 150 mg daily and daptomycin 750 mg daily, followed by an oral suppressive regimen consisting of doxycycline 100 mg twice daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 2 g twice daily, and fluconazole initially 800 mg daily adjusted to 400 mg daily. The patient continued wound management with twice-daily dressing changes.

Nine months after DAIR, the patient remained on suppressive antifungal and antibacterial therapy. He continued to experience serous drainage from the wound, which greatly affected his quality of life. After discussion with his family and the orthopedic surgery team, he agreed to proceed with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving prosthetic explant and antibiotic spacer placement. However, the surgery was postponed due to findings of anemia (hemoglobin, 8.9 g/dL) and thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 73 x 10³/λL). At the time of this report, the patient was being monitored closely with his multidisciplinary care team for the planned orthopedic procedure.

DISCUSSION

PJI is the most common cause of primary hip arthroplasty failure; however, fungal species only make up about 1% of PJIs.^3,9-11 Patients are typically immunocompromised, undergoing antineoplastic therapies for malignancy, or have other comorbid conditions such as diabetes.^12,13 C. glabrata presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge as it is not only rare but also notorious for its resistance to common antifungal agents. C. glabrata is known to develop multidrug resistance through the rapid accumulation of genomic mutations.¹⁴ Its propensity towards forming protective biofilm also arms it with intrinsic resistance to agents like fluconazole.¹⁵ Furthermore, based on a review of the available reports in the literature, C. glabrata PJIs are often insidious and present with symptoms closely mimicking those of bacterial PJIs, as it did in the patient in this case.¹⁶

Synovial fluid analysis, fungal cultures, and sensitivity testing are paramount for ensuring proper diagnosis for fungal PJI. The patient in this case was empirically treated with micafungin based on recommendations from the ID team. When the sensitivities results were reviewed, the same antifungal therapy was continued. Echinocandins have a favorable toxicity profile in long-term use, as well as efficacy against biofilm-producing organisms like C. glabrata.^17,18

While there are a few cases citing DAIR as a feasible surgical strategy for treating fungal PJI, more recent studies have reported greater success with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving some combination of debridement, placement of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers, and partial or total exchange of the infected prosthetic joint.^4,19-23 In this case, complete hardware replacement would have offered the patient the most favorable outlook for eliminating this fungal infection. However, given the patient’s advanced age, significant underlying comorbidities, and functional status, medical management with antifungal therapy and DAIR was favored.

Based on the discussion from the 6-month follow-up visit, the patient was experiencing progressive and persistent wound drainage and frequent dressing changes, highlighting the limitations of medical management for PJI in the setting of retained prosthesis. If the patient ultimately proceeds with a more invasive surgical intervention, another important consideration will be the likelihood of fungal PJI recurrence. At present, fungal PJI recurrence rates following antifungal and surgical treatment have been reported to range between 0% to 50%, which is too imprecise to be considered clinically useful.^22-24

Given the ambiguity surrounding management guidelines and limited treatment options, it is crucial to emphasize the timeline of this patient’s clinical presentation and subsequent course of treatment. Upon presentation to the ED in late July, fungal PJI was considered less likely. Initial blood cultures from presentation were negative, which is common with PJIs. It was not until 5 days later that the left hip wound culture showed moderate growth of C. glabrata. Identifying a PJI is clinically challenging due to the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria. However, timely identification and diagnosis of fungal PJI with appropriate antifungal therapy, in patients with limited curative options due to comorbidities, can significantly improve quality of life and overall outcomes.²⁵ Routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures are not currently recommended in PJI guidelines, but this case illustrates it is imperative in immunocompromised hosts.²⁶

This case and the current paucity of similar cases in the literature stress the importance of clinicians publishing their experience in the management of fungal PJI. We strongly recommend that clinicians approach each suspected PJI with careful consideration of the patient’s unique risk factors, comorbidities, and goals of care, when deciding on a curative vs suppressive approach to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report highlights the importance of considering fungal pathogens for PJIs, especially in high-risk patients, the value of obtaining fungal cultures, the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach, the role of antifungal susceptibility testing, and consideration for the feasibility of a surgical intervention. It underscores the challenges in diagnosis and treatment of C. glabrata-associated PJI, emphasizing the importance of clinician experience-sharing in developing evidence-based management strategies. As the understanding of fungal PJI evolves, continued research and clinical data collection remain crucial for improving patient outcomes in the management of these complex cases.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in about 1% to 2% of joint replacements. ¹ Risk factors include immunosuppression, diabetes, chronic illnesses, and prolonged operative time.² Bacterial infections constitute most of these infections, while fungal pathogens account for about 1%. Candida (C.) species, predominantly C. albicans, are responsible for most PJIs.^1,3 In contrast, C. glabrata is a rare cause of fungal PJI, with only 18 PJI cases currently reported in the literature.⁴ C. glabrata PJI occurs more frequently among immunosuppressed patients and is associated with a higher treatment failure rate despite antifungal therapy.⁵ Treatment of fungal PJI is often complicated, involving multiple surgical debridements, prolonged antifungal therapy, and in some cases, prosthesis removal.⁶ However, given the rarity of C. glabrata as a PJI pathogen, no standardized treatment guidelines exist, leading to potential delays in diagnosis and tailored treatment.^7,8

CASE PRESENTATION

A male Vietnam veteran aged 75 years presented to the emergency department in July 2023 with a fluid collection over his left hip surgical incision site. The patient had a complex medical history that included chronic kidney disease, well-controlled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. His history was further complicated by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with hepatocellular carcinoma that was treated with transarterial radioembolization and yttrium-90. The patient had undergone a left total hip arthroplasty in 1996 and subsequent open reduction and internal fixation about 9 months prior to his presentation. The patient reported the fluid had been present for about 6 weeks, while he received outpatient monitoring by the orthopedic surgery service. He sought emergency care after noting a moderate amount of purulent discharge on his clothing originating from his hip. In the week prior to admission, the patient observed progressive erythema, warmth, and tenderness over the incision site. Despite these symptoms, the patient remained ambulatory and able to walk long distances with the use of an assistive device.

Upon presentation, the patient was afebrile and normotensive. Laboratory testing revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 77 mm/h (reference range, 0-20 mm/h) and a C-reactive protein of 9.8 mg/L (reference range, 0-2.5 mg/L), suggesting an underlying infectious process. A physical examination revealed a well-healed incision over the left hip with a poorly defined area of fluctuance and evidence of wound dehiscence. The left lower extremity was swollen with 2+ pitting edema, but tenderness was localized to the incision site. Magnetic resonance imaging of the left hip revealed a multiloculated fluid collection abutting the left greater trochanter with extension to the skin surface and inferior extension along the entire length of the surgical fixation hardware (Figure).

Upon admission, orthopedic surgery performed a bedside aspiration of the fluid collection. Samples were sent for analysis, including cell count and bacterial and fungal cultures. Initial blood cultures were sterile. Due to concerns for a bacterial infection, the patient was started on empiric intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone 2 g/day and IV vancomycin 1250 mg/day. Synovial fluid analysis revealed an elevated white blood cell count of 45,000/ìL, but bacterial cultures were negative. Five days after admission, the fungal culture from the left hip wound was notable for presence of C. glabrata, prompting an infectious diseases (ID) consultation. IV micafungin 100 mg/day was initiated as empiric antifungal therapy.

ID and orthopedic surgery teams determined that a combined medical and surgical approach would be best suited for infection control. They proposed 2 main approaches: complete hardware replacement with washout, which carried a higher morbidity risk but a better chance of infection resolution, or partial hardware replacement with washout, which was associated with a lower morbidity risk but a higher risk of infection persistence and recurrence. This decision was particularly challenging for the patient, who prioritized maintaining his functional status, including his ability to continue dancing for pleasure. The patient opted for a more conservative approach, electing to proceed with antifungal therapy and debridement while retaining the prosthetic joint.

After 11 days of hospitalization, the patient was discharged with a peripherally inserted central catheter for long-term antifungal infusions of micafungin 150 mg/day at home. Fungal sensitivity test results several days after discharge confirmed susceptibility to micafungin.

About 2 weeks after discharge, the patient underwent debridement and implant retention (DAIR). Wound cultures were positive for C. glabrata, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum. Based on susceptibilities, he completed a 2-month course of IV micafungin 150 mg daily and daptomycin 750 mg daily, followed by an oral suppressive regimen consisting of doxycycline 100 mg twice daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 2 g twice daily, and fluconazole initially 800 mg daily adjusted to 400 mg daily. The patient continued wound management with twice-daily dressing changes.

Nine months after DAIR, the patient remained on suppressive antifungal and antibacterial therapy. He continued to experience serous drainage from the wound, which greatly affected his quality of life. After discussion with his family and the orthopedic surgery team, he agreed to proceed with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving prosthetic explant and antibiotic spacer placement. However, the surgery was postponed due to findings of anemia (hemoglobin, 8.9 g/dL) and thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 73 x 10³/λL). At the time of this report, the patient was being monitored closely with his multidisciplinary care team for the planned orthopedic procedure.

DISCUSSION

PJI is the most common cause of primary hip arthroplasty failure; however, fungal species only make up about 1% of PJIs.^3,9-11 Patients are typically immunocompromised, undergoing antineoplastic therapies for malignancy, or have other comorbid conditions such as diabetes.^12,13 C. glabrata presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge as it is not only rare but also notorious for its resistance to common antifungal agents. C. glabrata is known to develop multidrug resistance through the rapid accumulation of genomic mutations.¹⁴ Its propensity towards forming protective biofilm also arms it with intrinsic resistance to agents like fluconazole.¹⁵ Furthermore, based on a review of the available reports in the literature, C. glabrata PJIs are often insidious and present with symptoms closely mimicking those of bacterial PJIs, as it did in the patient in this case.¹⁶

Synovial fluid analysis, fungal cultures, and sensitivity testing are paramount for ensuring proper diagnosis for fungal PJI. The patient in this case was empirically treated with micafungin based on recommendations from the ID team. When the sensitivities results were reviewed, the same antifungal therapy was continued. Echinocandins have a favorable toxicity profile in long-term use, as well as efficacy against biofilm-producing organisms like C. glabrata.^17,18

While there are a few cases citing DAIR as a feasible surgical strategy for treating fungal PJI, more recent studies have reported greater success with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving some combination of debridement, placement of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers, and partial or total exchange of the infected prosthetic joint.^4,19-23 In this case, complete hardware replacement would have offered the patient the most favorable outlook for eliminating this fungal infection. However, given the patient’s advanced age, significant underlying comorbidities, and functional status, medical management with antifungal therapy and DAIR was favored.

Based on the discussion from the 6-month follow-up visit, the patient was experiencing progressive and persistent wound drainage and frequent dressing changes, highlighting the limitations of medical management for PJI in the setting of retained prosthesis. If the patient ultimately proceeds with a more invasive surgical intervention, another important consideration will be the likelihood of fungal PJI recurrence. At present, fungal PJI recurrence rates following antifungal and surgical treatment have been reported to range between 0% to 50%, which is too imprecise to be considered clinically useful.^22-24

Given the ambiguity surrounding management guidelines and limited treatment options, it is crucial to emphasize the timeline of this patient’s clinical presentation and subsequent course of treatment. Upon presentation to the ED in late July, fungal PJI was considered less likely. Initial blood cultures from presentation were negative, which is common with PJIs. It was not until 5 days later that the left hip wound culture showed moderate growth of C. glabrata. Identifying a PJI is clinically challenging due to the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria. However, timely identification and diagnosis of fungal PJI with appropriate antifungal therapy, in patients with limited curative options due to comorbidities, can significantly improve quality of life and overall outcomes.²⁵ Routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures are not currently recommended in PJI guidelines, but this case illustrates it is imperative in immunocompromised hosts.²⁶

This case and the current paucity of similar cases in the literature stress the importance of clinicians publishing their experience in the management of fungal PJI. We strongly recommend that clinicians approach each suspected PJI with careful consideration of the patient’s unique risk factors, comorbidities, and goals of care, when deciding on a curative vs suppressive approach to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report highlights the importance of considering fungal pathogens for PJIs, especially in high-risk patients, the value of obtaining fungal cultures, the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach, the role of antifungal susceptibility testing, and consideration for the feasibility of a surgical intervention. It underscores the challenges in diagnosis and treatment of C. glabrata-associated PJI, emphasizing the importance of clinician experience-sharing in developing evidence-based management strategies. As the understanding of fungal PJI evolves, continued research and clinical data collection remain crucial for improving patient outcomes in the management of these complex cases.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, how are you feeling about sports injuries? 

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m feeling great, Matt.

Watto: You had a sports injury of the hip. Maybe that’s an overshare, Paul, but we talked about it on a podcast with Dr Carlin Senter (part 1 and part 2).

Williams: I think I’ve shared more than my hip injury, for sure. 

Watto: Whenever a patient presented with hip pain, I used to pray it was trochanteric bursitis, which now I know is not really the right thing to think about. Intra-articular hip pain presents as anterior hip pain, usually in the crease of the hip. Depending on the patient’s age and history, the differential for that type of pain includes iliopsoas tendonitis, FAI syndrome, a labral tear, a bone stress injury of the femoral neck, or osteoarthritis. 

So, what exactly is FAI and how might we diagnose it? 

Williams: FAI is what the cool kids call femoral acetabular impingement, and it’s exactly what it sounds like.

 

Something is pinching or impinging upon the joint itself and preventing full range of motion. This is a ball-and-socket joint, so it should have tremendous range of motion, able to move in all planes. If it’s impinged, then pain will occur with certain movements. There’s a cam type, which is characterized by enlargement of the femoral head neck junction, or a pincer type, which has more to do with overhang of the acetabulum, and it can also be mixed. In any case, impingement upon the patient’s full range of motion results in pain. 

You evaluate this with a couple of tests — the FABER and the FADIR. 

The FABER is flexion, abduction, and external rotation, and the FADIR is flexion, adduction, and internal rotation. If you elicit anterior pain with either of those tests, it’s probably one of the intra-articular pathologies, although it is hard to know for sure which one it is because these tests are fairly sensitive but not very specific. 

Watto: You can get x-rays to help with the diagnosis. You would order two views of the hip: an AP of the pelvis, which is just a straight-on shot to look for arthritis or fracture. Is there a healthy joint line there? The second is the Dunn view, in which the hip is flexed 90 degrees and abducted about 20 degrees. You are looking for fracture or impingement. You can diagnose FAI based on that view, and you might be able to diagnose a hip stress injury or osteoarthritis.

Unfortunately, you’re not going to see a labral tear, but Dr Senter said that both FAI and labral tears are treated the same way, with physical therapy. Patients with FAI who aren’t getting better might end up going for surgery, so at some point I would refer them to orthopedic surgery. But I feel much more comfortable now diagnosing these conditions with these tests.

Let’s talk a little bit about trochanteric pain syndrome. I used to think it was all bursitis. Why is that not correct? 

Williams: It’s nice of you to feign ignorance for the purpose of education. It used to be thought of as bursitis, but these days we know it is probably more likely a tendinopathy. 

 

Trochanteric pain syndrome was formerly known as trochanteric bursitis, but the bursa is not typically involved. Trochanteric pain syndrome is a tendinopathy of the surrounding structures: the gluteus medius, the iliotibial band, and the tensor fascia latae. The way these structures relate looks a bit like the face of a clock, as you can see on the infographic. In general, you manage this condition the same way you do with bursitis — physical therapy. You can also give corticosteroid injections. Physical therapy is probably more durable in terms of pain relief and functionality, but in the short term, corticosteroids might provide some degree of analgesia as well. 

Watto: The last thing we wanted to mention is bone stress injury, which can occur in high-mileage runners (20 miles or more per week). Patients with bone stress injury need to rest, usually non‒weight bearing, for a period of time. 

 

Treatment of a bone stress fracture depends on which side it’s on (top or bottom). If it’s on the top of the femoral neck (the tension side), it has to be fixed. If it’s on the compression side (the bottom side of the femoral neck), it might be able to be managed conservatively, but many patients are going to need surgery. This is a big deal. But it’s a spectrum; in some cases the bone is merely irritated and unhappy, without a break in the cortex. Those patients might not need surgery. 

In patients with a fracture of the femoral neck — especially younger, healthier patients — you should think about getting a bone density test and screening for relative energy deficiency in sport. This used to be called the female athlete triad, which includes disrupted menstrual cycles, being underweight, and fracture. We should be screening patients, asking them in a nonjudgmental way about their relationship with food, to make sure they are getting an appropriate number of calories.

They are actually in an energy deficit. They’re not eating enough to maintain a healthy body with so much activity. 

Williams: If you’re interested in this topic, you should refer to the full podcast with Dr Senter which is chock-full of helpful information.

Dr Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, how are you feeling about sports injuries? 

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m feeling great, Matt.

Watto: You had a sports injury of the hip. Maybe that’s an overshare, Paul, but we talked about it on a podcast with Dr Carlin Senter (part 1 and part 2).

Williams: I think I’ve shared more than my hip injury, for sure. 

Watto: Whenever a patient presented with hip pain, I used to pray it was trochanteric bursitis, which now I know is not really the right thing to think about. Intra-articular hip pain presents as anterior hip pain, usually in the crease of the hip. Depending on the patient’s age and history, the differential for that type of pain includes iliopsoas tendonitis, FAI syndrome, a labral tear, a bone stress injury of the femoral neck, or osteoarthritis. 

So, what exactly is FAI and how might we diagnose it? 

Williams: FAI is what the cool kids call femoral acetabular impingement, and it’s exactly what it sounds like.

 

Something is pinching or impinging upon the joint itself and preventing full range of motion. This is a ball-and-socket joint, so it should have tremendous range of motion, able to move in all planes. If it’s impinged, then pain will occur with certain movements. There’s a cam type, which is characterized by enlargement of the femoral head neck junction, or a pincer type, which has more to do with overhang of the acetabulum, and it can also be mixed. In any case, impingement upon the patient’s full range of motion results in pain. 

You evaluate this with a couple of tests — the FABER and the FADIR. 

The FABER is flexion, abduction, and external rotation, and the FADIR is flexion, adduction, and internal rotation. If you elicit anterior pain with either of those tests, it’s probably one of the intra-articular pathologies, although it is hard to know for sure which one it is because these tests are fairly sensitive but not very specific. 

Watto: You can get x-rays to help with the diagnosis. You would order two views of the hip: an AP of the pelvis, which is just a straight-on shot to look for arthritis or fracture. Is there a healthy joint line there? The second is the Dunn view, in which the hip is flexed 90 degrees and abducted about 20 degrees. You are looking for fracture or impingement. You can diagnose FAI based on that view, and you might be able to diagnose a hip stress injury or osteoarthritis.

Unfortunately, you’re not going to see a labral tear, but Dr Senter said that both FAI and labral tears are treated the same way, with physical therapy. Patients with FAI who aren’t getting better might end up going for surgery, so at some point I would refer them to orthopedic surgery. But I feel much more comfortable now diagnosing these conditions with these tests.

Let’s talk a little bit about trochanteric pain syndrome. I used to think it was all bursitis. Why is that not correct? 

Williams: It’s nice of you to feign ignorance for the purpose of education. It used to be thought of as bursitis, but these days we know it is probably more likely a tendinopathy. 

 

Trochanteric pain syndrome was formerly known as trochanteric bursitis, but the bursa is not typically involved. Trochanteric pain syndrome is a tendinopathy of the surrounding structures: the gluteus medius, the iliotibial band, and the tensor fascia latae. The way these structures relate looks a bit like the face of a clock, as you can see on the infographic. In general, you manage this condition the same way you do with bursitis — physical therapy. You can also give corticosteroid injections. Physical therapy is probably more durable in terms of pain relief and functionality, but in the short term, corticosteroids might provide some degree of analgesia as well. 

Watto: The last thing we wanted to mention is bone stress injury, which can occur in high-mileage runners (20 miles or more per week). Patients with bone stress injury need to rest, usually non‒weight bearing, for a period of time. 

 

Treatment of a bone stress fracture depends on which side it’s on (top or bottom). If it’s on the top of the femoral neck (the tension side), it has to be fixed. If it’s on the compression side (the bottom side of the femoral neck), it might be able to be managed conservatively, but many patients are going to need surgery. This is a big deal. But it’s a spectrum; in some cases the bone is merely irritated and unhappy, without a break in the cortex. Those patients might not need surgery. 

In patients with a fracture of the femoral neck — especially younger, healthier patients — you should think about getting a bone density test and screening for relative energy deficiency in sport. This used to be called the female athlete triad, which includes disrupted menstrual cycles, being underweight, and fracture. We should be screening patients, asking them in a nonjudgmental way about their relationship with food, to make sure they are getting an appropriate number of calories.

They are actually in an energy deficit. They’re not eating enough to maintain a healthy body with so much activity. 

Williams: If you’re interested in this topic, you should refer to the full podcast with Dr Senter which is chock-full of helpful information.

Dr Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, how are you feeling about sports injuries? 

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m feeling great, Matt.

Watto: You had a sports injury of the hip. Maybe that’s an overshare, Paul, but we talked about it on a podcast with Dr Carlin Senter (part 1 and part 2).

Williams: I think I’ve shared more than my hip injury, for sure. 

Watto: Whenever a patient presented with hip pain, I used to pray it was trochanteric bursitis, which now I know is not really the right thing to think about. Intra-articular hip pain presents as anterior hip pain, usually in the crease of the hip. Depending on the patient’s age and history, the differential for that type of pain includes iliopsoas tendonitis, FAI syndrome, a labral tear, a bone stress injury of the femoral neck, or osteoarthritis. 

So, what exactly is FAI and how might we diagnose it? 

Williams: FAI is what the cool kids call femoral acetabular impingement, and it’s exactly what it sounds like.

 

Something is pinching or impinging upon the joint itself and preventing full range of motion. This is a ball-and-socket joint, so it should have tremendous range of motion, able to move in all planes. If it’s impinged, then pain will occur with certain movements. There’s a cam type, which is characterized by enlargement of the femoral head neck junction, or a pincer type, which has more to do with overhang of the acetabulum, and it can also be mixed. In any case, impingement upon the patient’s full range of motion results in pain. 

You evaluate this with a couple of tests — the FABER and the FADIR. 

The FABER is flexion, abduction, and external rotation, and the FADIR is flexion, adduction, and internal rotation. If you elicit anterior pain with either of those tests, it’s probably one of the intra-articular pathologies, although it is hard to know for sure which one it is because these tests are fairly sensitive but not very specific. 

Watto: You can get x-rays to help with the diagnosis. You would order two views of the hip: an AP of the pelvis, which is just a straight-on shot to look for arthritis or fracture. Is there a healthy joint line there? The second is the Dunn view, in which the hip is flexed 90 degrees and abducted about 20 degrees. You are looking for fracture or impingement. You can diagnose FAI based on that view, and you might be able to diagnose a hip stress injury or osteoarthritis.

Unfortunately, you’re not going to see a labral tear, but Dr Senter said that both FAI and labral tears are treated the same way, with physical therapy. Patients with FAI who aren’t getting better might end up going for surgery, so at some point I would refer them to orthopedic surgery. But I feel much more comfortable now diagnosing these conditions with these tests.

Let’s talk a little bit about trochanteric pain syndrome. I used to think it was all bursitis. Why is that not correct? 

Williams: It’s nice of you to feign ignorance for the purpose of education. It used to be thought of as bursitis, but these days we know it is probably more likely a tendinopathy. 

 

Trochanteric pain syndrome was formerly known as trochanteric bursitis, but the bursa is not typically involved. Trochanteric pain syndrome is a tendinopathy of the surrounding structures: the gluteus medius, the iliotibial band, and the tensor fascia latae. The way these structures relate looks a bit like the face of a clock, as you can see on the infographic. In general, you manage this condition the same way you do with bursitis — physical therapy. You can also give corticosteroid injections. Physical therapy is probably more durable in terms of pain relief and functionality, but in the short term, corticosteroids might provide some degree of analgesia as well. 

Watto: The last thing we wanted to mention is bone stress injury, which can occur in high-mileage runners (20 miles or more per week). Patients with bone stress injury need to rest, usually non‒weight bearing, for a period of time. 

 

Treatment of a bone stress fracture depends on which side it’s on (top or bottom). If it’s on the top of the femoral neck (the tension side), it has to be fixed. If it’s on the compression side (the bottom side of the femoral neck), it might be able to be managed conservatively, but many patients are going to need surgery. This is a big deal. But it’s a spectrum; in some cases the bone is merely irritated and unhappy, without a break in the cortex. Those patients might not need surgery. 

In patients with a fracture of the femoral neck — especially younger, healthier patients — you should think about getting a bone density test and screening for relative energy deficiency in sport. This used to be called the female athlete triad, which includes disrupted menstrual cycles, being underweight, and fracture. We should be screening patients, asking them in a nonjudgmental way about their relationship with food, to make sure they are getting an appropriate number of calories.

They are actually in an energy deficit. They’re not eating enough to maintain a healthy body with so much activity. 

Williams: If you’re interested in this topic, you should refer to the full podcast with Dr Senter which is chock-full of helpful information.

Dr Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The woman, in severe pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis, was confined to a wheelchair and had been told that would likely be for life. To qualify for hip replacement surgery, she needed to lose 100 pounds, a seemingly impossible goal. But she wanted to try.

“We tried a couple of medicines — oral medicines off-label — topiramate, phentermine,” said Leslie Golden, MD, MPH, DABM, a family medicine physician and obesity medicine specialist in Watertown, Wisconsin, 42 miles northeast of Madison.

They weren’t enough. But then Golden turned to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and they delivered.

“She did lose a significant amount of weight and was able to get the hip replacement,” said Golden.

It took a couple of years. However, seeing her walk into her office, rather than wheel in, “is still one of the joys of my practice,” Golden said. “She’s so grateful. She felt everyone else had written her off.”

As she told Golden: “If I fell and broke my leg today, they would take me to surgery without concern.”

Because her hip replacement was viewed as a nonemergency procedure, the accepted threshold for elective safe surgery was a body mass index (BMI) < 40. That BMI cutoff can vary from provider to provider and medical facility to medical facility but is often required for other surgeries as well, including kidney and lung transplants, gender-affirming surgery, bariatric surgery, hernia surgery, and in vitro fertilization procedures.

Golden is at the forefront of a growing trend — obesity medicine physicians collaborating with surgeons to prescribe the more effective GLP-1s and get surgery candidates to the starting line. She worked with Rajit Chakravarty, MD, an adult reconstructive surgeon who practices in Watertown and nearby Madison, to oversee the weight loss.

 

High BMIs & Surgery Issues

High BMIs have long been linked with postsurgery complications, poor wound healing, and other issues, although some research now is questioning some of those associations. Even so, surgeons have long stressed weight loss for their patients with obesity before orthopedic and other procedures.

These days, surgeons are more likely to need to have that talk. In the last decade, the age-adjusted prevalence of severe obesity — a BMI of ≥ 40 — has increased from 7.7% to 9.7% of US adults. The number of joint replacements is also rising — more than 700,000 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and more than 450,000 total hip arthroplasty (THA), according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. As the population ages, those numbers are expected to increase.

 

Making the GLP-1 Choice

GLP-1s aren’t the only choice, of course. But they’re often more effective, as Golden found, than other medications. And when his patients with obesity are offered bariatric surgery or GLP-1s, “people definitely want to avoid the bariatric surgery,” Chakravarty said.

With the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of semaglutide (Wegovy) in June 2021 for chronic weight management and then tirzepatide (Zepbound) in November 2023, interest has boomed, he said, among his surgery candidates with a high BMI.

The FDA approved Wegovy based on clinical trials, including one in which participants lost an average of 12.4% of initial body weight compared with those on placebo. It approved Zepbound based on clinical trials, including one in which those on Zepbound lost an average of 18% of their body weight, compared with those on placebo.

The wheelchair-bound woman, now 65, began with a BMI of 63, Golden said. She negotiated a cutoff of 45 with the surgeon and got the go-ahead. Currently, her BMI is 36 as she stayed on the medications.

Beyond the benefit of GLP-1s helping patients meet the BMI cutoff, some research finds fewer postoperative infections and readmissions with their use. This study found the medications did lower both, and another found reduced readmissions and complications.

 

Growing Partnerships, Increasing Success

Helping patients lose weight isn’t just about lowering the BMI, Chakravarty pointed out. The aim is to improve nutritional health — to teach patients how to eat healthfully for their needs, in turn improving other health barometers. Referring them to an obesity medicine physician helps to meet those goals.

When Daniel Wiznia, MD, a Yale Medicine orthopedic surgeon and codirector of the Avascular Necrosis Program, has a patient who must delay a TKA or THA until they meet a BMI cutoff, he refers that patient to the Yale Medicine Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Connecticut, to learn about weight loss, including the options of anti-obesity medications or bariatric surgery.

Taking the GLP-1s can be a game changer, according to Wiznia and John Morton, MD, MPH, FACS, FASMBS, Yale’s medical director of Bariatric Surgery and professor and vice chair of surgery, who is a physician-director of the center. The program includes other options, such as bariatric surgery, and emphasizes diet and other lifestyle measures. GLP-1s give about a 15% weight loss, Morton said, compared with bariatric surgery providing up to 30%.

Sarah Stombaugh, MD, a family medicine and obesity medicine physician in Charlottesville, Virginia, often gets referrals from two orthopedic surgeons in her community. One recent patient in her early 60s had a BMI of 43.2, too high to qualify for the TKA she needed. On GLP-1s, the initial goal was to decrease a weight of 244 to 225, bringing the BMI to 39.9. The woman did that, then kept losing before her surgery was scheduled, getting to a weight of 210 or a BMI of 37 and staying there for 3 months before the surgery.

She had the TKA, and 5 months out, she is doing well, Stombaugh said. “We do medical weight loss primarily with the GLP-1s because they’re simply the best, the most effective,” Stombaugh said. She does occasionally use oral medications such as naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).

Stombaugh sees the collaborating trend as still evolving. When she attends obesity medicine conferences, not all her colleagues report they are partnering with surgeons. But she predicts the practice will increase, saying the popularization of what she terms the more effective GLP-1 medications Wegovy and Zepbound is driving it. Partnering with the surgeon requires a conversation at the beginning, when the referral is made, about goals. After that, she sees her patient monthly and sends progress notes to the surgeon.

Golden collaborates with three orthopedic groups in her area, primarily for knee and hip surgeries, but has also helped patients meet the BMI cutoff before spine-related surgeries. She is helping a lung transplant patient now. She has seen several patients who must meet BMI requirements before starting in vitro fertilization, due to the need for conscious sedation for egg retrieval. She has had a few patients who had to meet a BMI cutoff for nonemergency hernia repair.

 

Insurance Issues

Insurance remains an issue for the pricey medications. “Only about a third of patients are routinely covered with insurance,” Morton said.

However, it’s improving, he said. Golden also finds about a third of private payers cover the medication but tries to use manufacturers’ coupons to help defray the costs (from about $1000 or $1400 to about $500 a month). She has sometimes gotten enough samples to get patients to their BMI goal

Morton consulted for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Olympus, Teleflex, and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The woman, in severe pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis, was confined to a wheelchair and had been told that would likely be for life. To qualify for hip replacement surgery, she needed to lose 100 pounds, a seemingly impossible goal. But she wanted to try.

“We tried a couple of medicines — oral medicines off-label — topiramate, phentermine,” said Leslie Golden, MD, MPH, DABM, a family medicine physician and obesity medicine specialist in Watertown, Wisconsin, 42 miles northeast of Madison.

They weren’t enough. But then Golden turned to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and they delivered.

“She did lose a significant amount of weight and was able to get the hip replacement,” said Golden.

It took a couple of years. However, seeing her walk into her office, rather than wheel in, “is still one of the joys of my practice,” Golden said. “She’s so grateful. She felt everyone else had written her off.”

As she told Golden: “If I fell and broke my leg today, they would take me to surgery without concern.”

Because her hip replacement was viewed as a nonemergency procedure, the accepted threshold for elective safe surgery was a body mass index (BMI) < 40. That BMI cutoff can vary from provider to provider and medical facility to medical facility but is often required for other surgeries as well, including kidney and lung transplants, gender-affirming surgery, bariatric surgery, hernia surgery, and in vitro fertilization procedures.

Golden is at the forefront of a growing trend — obesity medicine physicians collaborating with surgeons to prescribe the more effective GLP-1s and get surgery candidates to the starting line. She worked with Rajit Chakravarty, MD, an adult reconstructive surgeon who practices in Watertown and nearby Madison, to oversee the weight loss.

 

High BMIs & Surgery Issues

High BMIs have long been linked with postsurgery complications, poor wound healing, and other issues, although some research now is questioning some of those associations. Even so, surgeons have long stressed weight loss for their patients with obesity before orthopedic and other procedures.

These days, surgeons are more likely to need to have that talk. In the last decade, the age-adjusted prevalence of severe obesity — a BMI of ≥ 40 — has increased from 7.7% to 9.7% of US adults. The number of joint replacements is also rising — more than 700,000 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and more than 450,000 total hip arthroplasty (THA), according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. As the population ages, those numbers are expected to increase.

 

Making the GLP-1 Choice

GLP-1s aren’t the only choice, of course. But they’re often more effective, as Golden found, than other medications. And when his patients with obesity are offered bariatric surgery or GLP-1s, “people definitely want to avoid the bariatric surgery,” Chakravarty said.

With the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of semaglutide (Wegovy) in June 2021 for chronic weight management and then tirzepatide (Zepbound) in November 2023, interest has boomed, he said, among his surgery candidates with a high BMI.

The FDA approved Wegovy based on clinical trials, including one in which participants lost an average of 12.4% of initial body weight compared with those on placebo. It approved Zepbound based on clinical trials, including one in which those on Zepbound lost an average of 18% of their body weight, compared with those on placebo.

The wheelchair-bound woman, now 65, began with a BMI of 63, Golden said. She negotiated a cutoff of 45 with the surgeon and got the go-ahead. Currently, her BMI is 36 as she stayed on the medications.

Beyond the benefit of GLP-1s helping patients meet the BMI cutoff, some research finds fewer postoperative infections and readmissions with their use. This study found the medications did lower both, and another found reduced readmissions and complications.

 

Growing Partnerships, Increasing Success

Helping patients lose weight isn’t just about lowering the BMI, Chakravarty pointed out. The aim is to improve nutritional health — to teach patients how to eat healthfully for their needs, in turn improving other health barometers. Referring them to an obesity medicine physician helps to meet those goals.

When Daniel Wiznia, MD, a Yale Medicine orthopedic surgeon and codirector of the Avascular Necrosis Program, has a patient who must delay a TKA or THA until they meet a BMI cutoff, he refers that patient to the Yale Medicine Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Connecticut, to learn about weight loss, including the options of anti-obesity medications or bariatric surgery.

Taking the GLP-1s can be a game changer, according to Wiznia and John Morton, MD, MPH, FACS, FASMBS, Yale’s medical director of Bariatric Surgery and professor and vice chair of surgery, who is a physician-director of the center. The program includes other options, such as bariatric surgery, and emphasizes diet and other lifestyle measures. GLP-1s give about a 15% weight loss, Morton said, compared with bariatric surgery providing up to 30%.

Sarah Stombaugh, MD, a family medicine and obesity medicine physician in Charlottesville, Virginia, often gets referrals from two orthopedic surgeons in her community. One recent patient in her early 60s had a BMI of 43.2, too high to qualify for the TKA she needed. On GLP-1s, the initial goal was to decrease a weight of 244 to 225, bringing the BMI to 39.9. The woman did that, then kept losing before her surgery was scheduled, getting to a weight of 210 or a BMI of 37 and staying there for 3 months before the surgery.

She had the TKA, and 5 months out, she is doing well, Stombaugh said. “We do medical weight loss primarily with the GLP-1s because they’re simply the best, the most effective,” Stombaugh said. She does occasionally use oral medications such as naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).

Stombaugh sees the collaborating trend as still evolving. When she attends obesity medicine conferences, not all her colleagues report they are partnering with surgeons. But she predicts the practice will increase, saying the popularization of what she terms the more effective GLP-1 medications Wegovy and Zepbound is driving it. Partnering with the surgeon requires a conversation at the beginning, when the referral is made, about goals. After that, she sees her patient monthly and sends progress notes to the surgeon.

Golden collaborates with three orthopedic groups in her area, primarily for knee and hip surgeries, but has also helped patients meet the BMI cutoff before spine-related surgeries. She is helping a lung transplant patient now. She has seen several patients who must meet BMI requirements before starting in vitro fertilization, due to the need for conscious sedation for egg retrieval. She has had a few patients who had to meet a BMI cutoff for nonemergency hernia repair.

 

Insurance Issues

Insurance remains an issue for the pricey medications. “Only about a third of patients are routinely covered with insurance,” Morton said.

However, it’s improving, he said. Golden also finds about a third of private payers cover the medication but tries to use manufacturers’ coupons to help defray the costs (from about $1000 or $1400 to about $500 a month). She has sometimes gotten enough samples to get patients to their BMI goal

Morton consulted for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Olympus, Teleflex, and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The woman, in severe pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis, was confined to a wheelchair and had been told that would likely be for life. To qualify for hip replacement surgery, she needed to lose 100 pounds, a seemingly impossible goal. But she wanted to try.

“We tried a couple of medicines — oral medicines off-label — topiramate, phentermine,” said Leslie Golden, MD, MPH, DABM, a family medicine physician and obesity medicine specialist in Watertown, Wisconsin, 42 miles northeast of Madison.

They weren’t enough. But then Golden turned to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and they delivered.

“She did lose a significant amount of weight and was able to get the hip replacement,” said Golden.

It took a couple of years. However, seeing her walk into her office, rather than wheel in, “is still one of the joys of my practice,” Golden said. “She’s so grateful. She felt everyone else had written her off.”

As she told Golden: “If I fell and broke my leg today, they would take me to surgery without concern.”

Because her hip replacement was viewed as a nonemergency procedure, the accepted threshold for elective safe surgery was a body mass index (BMI) < 40. That BMI cutoff can vary from provider to provider and medical facility to medical facility but is often required for other surgeries as well, including kidney and lung transplants, gender-affirming surgery, bariatric surgery, hernia surgery, and in vitro fertilization procedures.

Golden is at the forefront of a growing trend — obesity medicine physicians collaborating with surgeons to prescribe the more effective GLP-1s and get surgery candidates to the starting line. She worked with Rajit Chakravarty, MD, an adult reconstructive surgeon who practices in Watertown and nearby Madison, to oversee the weight loss.

 

High BMIs & Surgery Issues

High BMIs have long been linked with postsurgery complications, poor wound healing, and other issues, although some research now is questioning some of those associations. Even so, surgeons have long stressed weight loss for their patients with obesity before orthopedic and other procedures.

These days, surgeons are more likely to need to have that talk. In the last decade, the age-adjusted prevalence of severe obesity — a BMI of ≥ 40 — has increased from 7.7% to 9.7% of US adults. The number of joint replacements is also rising — more than 700,000 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and more than 450,000 total hip arthroplasty (THA), according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. As the population ages, those numbers are expected to increase.

 

Making the GLP-1 Choice

GLP-1s aren’t the only choice, of course. But they’re often more effective, as Golden found, than other medications. And when his patients with obesity are offered bariatric surgery or GLP-1s, “people definitely want to avoid the bariatric surgery,” Chakravarty said.

With the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of semaglutide (Wegovy) in June 2021 for chronic weight management and then tirzepatide (Zepbound) in November 2023, interest has boomed, he said, among his surgery candidates with a high BMI.

The FDA approved Wegovy based on clinical trials, including one in which participants lost an average of 12.4% of initial body weight compared with those on placebo. It approved Zepbound based on clinical trials, including one in which those on Zepbound lost an average of 18% of their body weight, compared with those on placebo.

The wheelchair-bound woman, now 65, began with a BMI of 63, Golden said. She negotiated a cutoff of 45 with the surgeon and got the go-ahead. Currently, her BMI is 36 as she stayed on the medications.

Beyond the benefit of GLP-1s helping patients meet the BMI cutoff, some research finds fewer postoperative infections and readmissions with their use. This study found the medications did lower both, and another found reduced readmissions and complications.

 

Growing Partnerships, Increasing Success

Helping patients lose weight isn’t just about lowering the BMI, Chakravarty pointed out. The aim is to improve nutritional health — to teach patients how to eat healthfully for their needs, in turn improving other health barometers. Referring them to an obesity medicine physician helps to meet those goals.

When Daniel Wiznia, MD, a Yale Medicine orthopedic surgeon and codirector of the Avascular Necrosis Program, has a patient who must delay a TKA or THA until they meet a BMI cutoff, he refers that patient to the Yale Medicine Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Connecticut, to learn about weight loss, including the options of anti-obesity medications or bariatric surgery.

Taking the GLP-1s can be a game changer, according to Wiznia and John Morton, MD, MPH, FACS, FASMBS, Yale’s medical director of Bariatric Surgery and professor and vice chair of surgery, who is a physician-director of the center. The program includes other options, such as bariatric surgery, and emphasizes diet and other lifestyle measures. GLP-1s give about a 15% weight loss, Morton said, compared with bariatric surgery providing up to 30%.

Sarah Stombaugh, MD, a family medicine and obesity medicine physician in Charlottesville, Virginia, often gets referrals from two orthopedic surgeons in her community. One recent patient in her early 60s had a BMI of 43.2, too high to qualify for the TKA she needed. On GLP-1s, the initial goal was to decrease a weight of 244 to 225, bringing the BMI to 39.9. The woman did that, then kept losing before her surgery was scheduled, getting to a weight of 210 or a BMI of 37 and staying there for 3 months before the surgery.

She had the TKA, and 5 months out, she is doing well, Stombaugh said. “We do medical weight loss primarily with the GLP-1s because they’re simply the best, the most effective,” Stombaugh said. She does occasionally use oral medications such as naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).

Stombaugh sees the collaborating trend as still evolving. When she attends obesity medicine conferences, not all her colleagues report they are partnering with surgeons. But she predicts the practice will increase, saying the popularization of what she terms the more effective GLP-1 medications Wegovy and Zepbound is driving it. Partnering with the surgeon requires a conversation at the beginning, when the referral is made, about goals. After that, she sees her patient monthly and sends progress notes to the surgeon.

Golden collaborates with three orthopedic groups in her area, primarily for knee and hip surgeries, but has also helped patients meet the BMI cutoff before spine-related surgeries. She is helping a lung transplant patient now. She has seen several patients who must meet BMI requirements before starting in vitro fertilization, due to the need for conscious sedation for egg retrieval. She has had a few patients who had to meet a BMI cutoff for nonemergency hernia repair.

 

Insurance Issues

Insurance remains an issue for the pricey medications. “Only about a third of patients are routinely covered with insurance,” Morton said.

However, it’s improving, he said. Golden also finds about a third of private payers cover the medication but tries to use manufacturers’ coupons to help defray the costs (from about $1000 or $1400 to about $500 a month). She has sometimes gotten enough samples to get patients to their BMI goal

Morton consulted for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Olympus, Teleflex, and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.