Literature DB >> 25410504

Extramedullary compared with intramedullary implants for intertrochanteric hip fractures: thirty-day outcomes of 4432 procedures from the ACS NSQIP database.

Daniel D Bohl1, Bryce A Basques1, Nicholas S Golinvaux1, Christopher P Miller1, Michael R Baumgaertner1, Jonathan N Grauer1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For more than thirty-five years, the sliding hip screw, an extramedullary implant, has been the standard treatment for the stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures. Over the last decade, intramedullary implants have replaced extramedullary implants as the most commonly used type of implant in the United States for the treatment of this condition, without strong evidence of superior outcomes.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with use of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. Patients seventy years of age or older who had sustained an intertrochanteric fracture treated with extramedullary or intramedullary implant during 2009 to 2012 were identified. General surgical outcomes were compared between implant types, with adjustment for demographic data and comorbidities.
RESULTS: A total of 4432 patients were identified; 1612 (36.4%) were treated with an extramedullary implant, and 2820 (63.6%) with an intramedullary implant. The rates of the composite outcomes "serious adverse events" and "any adverse events" did not differ by implant type. The mean postoperative length of stay was shorter for patients treated with an intramedullary implant compared with those treated with an extramedullary implant (5.4 compared with 6.5 days; p < 0.001). Operation time, operating room time, and the rate of hospital readmission did not differ by implant type.
CONCLUSIONS: These results reinforce the results of previous randomized trials, demonstrating little difference in rates of general surgical adverse events between implant types. The present study presents an important departure from previous trials in its finding that patients treated with intramedullary implants have, on average, a shorter postoperative length of stay (by 1.1 days). The finding may negate the perceived excess cost associated with intramedullary treatment. Limitations regarding the ACS NSQIP database include a lack of detail regarding fracture subtype, outcomes beyond thirty days, and orthopaedic-specific outcomes.
Copyright © 2014 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25410504     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  18 in total

1.  Variation in Resource Utilization for Patients With Hip and Pelvic Fractures Despite Equal Medicare Reimbursement.

Authors:  Andre M Samuel; Matthew L Webb; Adam M Lukasiewicz; Bryce A Basques; Daniel D Bohl; Arya G Varthi; Joseph M Lane; Jonathan N Grauer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Clinical characteristics and risk factors of postoperative pneumonia after hip fracture surgery: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  H Lv; P Yin; A Long; Y Gao; Z Zhao; J Li; L Zhang; L Zhang; P Tang
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-05-30       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Cephalomedullary nailing versus sliding hip screws for Intertrochanteric and basicervical hip fractures: a propensity-matched study of short-term outcomes in over 17,000 patients.

Authors:  Jared A Warren; Kavin Sundaram; Robert Hampton; John McLaughlin; Brendan Patterson; Carlos A Higuera; Nicolas S Piuzzi
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-09-05

4.  Comparison of common risk stratification indices to predict outcomes among stage IV cancer patients with bowel obstruction undergoing surgery.

Authors:  Sarah B Bateni; Richard J Bold; Frederick J Meyers; Daniel J Canter; Robert J Canter
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 3.454

5.  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

6.  Association of the lateral wall integrity with clinical outcomes in older patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures treated with the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation-Asia.

Authors:  Zhaoman Shi; Minfei Qiang; Xiaoyang Jia; Kun Zhang; Yanxi Chen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  A comparative study of Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) versus Dynamic Condylar Screw (DCS) in management of unstable trochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Md Faraz Jamil; Julfiqar Mohd; Mazhar Abbas; Yasir Salam Siddiqui; Mohammad Jesan Khan
Journal:  Int J Burns Trauma       Date:  2022-06-15

8.  Perioperative adverse events in distal femur fractures treated with intramedullary nail versus plate and screw fixation.

Authors:  Christian A Pean; Sanjit R Konda; Adam C Fields; Anthony Christiano; Kenneth A Egol
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-11-01

9.  Hypoalbuminemia Is Associated With Increased Postoperative Mortality and Complications in Hand Surgery.

Authors:  Timothy J Luchetti; Andrew Chung; Neil Olmscheid; Daniel D Bohl; Joshua W Hustedt
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2019-01-19

10.  Temporal Trends in Hip Fractures: How Has Time-to-Surgery Changed?

Authors:  Suresh K Nayar; Majd Marrache; Jarred A Bressner; Micheal Raad; Babar Shafiq; Uma Srikumaran
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2021-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.