Literature DB >> 23184670

Convergence of outcomes for hip fracture fixation by nails and plates.

Foster Chen1, Zhong Wang, Timothy Bhattacharyya.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent popularity of intramedullary nails over sliding hip screws for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures is concerning given the absence of evidence for clinical superiority for nailing yet the presence of reimbursement differences. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We describe the change in outcomes of both procedures across a 15-year span and address the role of reimbursements in the setting of shifting patterns in use.
METHODS: A 5% sample of Medicare enrollees from 1993 to 2007 was used. Cohorts were generated along diagnostic and procedure codes. Trends in device use by hospital type, surgical times, and rate of revision surgeries were compared. Historic reimbursements were examined.
RESULTS: Since 2005, intramedullary nail fixation has become the more common treatment in government, nonprofit, and for-profit hospitals. Before 1999, intramedullary nailing required 36 minutes longer to perform than plate-and-screw fixation on average, and had higher revision surgery rates (hazard ratio, 2.48; CI, 1.37-4.48) and 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.42; CI, 1.01-1.99). These differences were not significant since 2000. Reimbursement differences have been consistently in favor of intramedullary nails.
CONCLUSION: Intramedullary nailing of intertrochanteric fractures has become as safe and efficient as the sliding hip screws, but has been more popular since 2006. Reimbursements were favorable for intramedullary nails in times of low and high use. These results argue against the reimbursement difference as the sole driving force for use of intramedullary nails. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23184670      PMCID: PMC3586009          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2694-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  19 in total

1.  A randomised comparison of AMBI, TGN and PFN for treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures.

Authors:  S Papasimos; C M Koutsojannis; A Panagopoulos; P Megas; E Lambiris
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Estimating anesthesia and surgical procedure times from medicare anesthesia claims.

Authors:  Jeffrey H Silber; Paul R Rosenbaum; Xuemei Zhang; Orit Even-Shoshan
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 7.892

3.  Financial incentives for lumbar surgery: a critical analysis of physician reimbursement for decompression and fusion procedures.

Authors:  Peter G Whang; Moe R Lim; Rick C Sasso; Alta Skelton; Zoe B Brown; David Greg Anderson; Todd J Albert; Alan S Hilibrand; Alexander R Vaccaro
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2008-08

4.  Technology assessment and adoption in orthopaedics: lessons learned.

Authors:  Kevin J Bozic; Joshua J Jacobs
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Trochanteric gamma nail and compression hip screw for trochanteric fractures: a randomized, prospective, comparative study in 210 elderly patients with a new design of the gamma nail.

Authors:  A Lizaur Utrilla; J Sanz Reig; F Miralles Muñoz; C Bendala Tufanisco
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.512

6.  Integrity of the lateral femoral wall in intertrochanteric hip fractures: an important predictor of a reoperation.

Authors:  Henrik Palm; Steffen Jacobsen; Stig Sonne-Holm; Peter Gebuhr
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database.

Authors:  Jeffrey O Anglen; James N Weinstein
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Geographic variation in device use for intertrochanteric hip fractures.

Authors:  Mary L Forte; Beth A Virnig; Robert L Kane; Sara Durham; Mohit Bhandari; Roger Feldman; Marc F Swiontkowski
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Is a sliding hip screw or im nail the preferred implant for intertrochanteric fracture fixation?

Authors:  Brian Aros; Anna N A Tosteson; Daniel J Gottlieb; Kenneth J Koval
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-05-09       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari; Emil Schemitsch; Anders Jönsson; Michael Zlowodzki; George J Haidukewych
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.512

View more
  3 in total

1.  Which Fixation Device is Preferred for Surgical Treatment of Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures in the United States? A Survey of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Authors:  Emily Niu; Arthur Yang; Alex H S Harris; Julius Bishop
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-07-25       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Increased mortality after intramedullary nailing of trochanteric fractures: a comparison of sliding hip screws with nails in 19,935 patients.

Authors:  Olof Wolf; Sebastian Mukka; Jan Ekelund; Cecilia Rogmark; Michael Möller; Nils P Hailer
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 3.717

3.  Effects of aminocaproic acid on perioperative hidden blood loss in elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture treated with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation.

Authors:  Rui Zhang; Zhuqing Yang; Tao Lei; Zichuan Ping; Guangchao Bai
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 1.671

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.