Henrik Palm1, Jordi Teixidor2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark. Electronic address: hpalm@dadlnet.dk. 2. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autónoma de Barcleona (UAB), Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In hip fracture surgery, the exact choice of implant often remains somewhat unclear for the individual surgeon, but the growing literature consensus has enabled publication of evidence-based surgical treatment pathways. The aim of this article was to review author pathways and national guidelines for hip fracture surgery and discuss a method for future pathway/guideline implementation and evaluation. METHODS: By a PubMed search in March 2015 six studies of surgical treatment pathways covering all types of proximal femoral fractures with publication after 1995 were identified. Also we searched the homepages of the national heath authorities and national orthopedic societies in West Europe and found 11 national or regional (in case of no national) guidelines including any type of proximal femoral fracture surgery. RESULTS: Pathway consensus is outspread (internal fixation for un-displaced femoral neck fractures and prosthesis for displaced among the elderly; and sliding hip screw for stabile- and intramedullary nails for unstable- and sub-trochanteric fractures) but they are based on a variety of criteria and definitions - and often leave wide space for the individual surgeons' subjective judgement. Appearing neither exhaustive nor exclusive, most of the pathways seem difficult to evaluate scientifically, which might explain why only very few have been evaluated for compliance, reliability and complications after implementation in an actual clinical setting. We therefore introduce a model for step-wise pathway implementation including proper scientific evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment pathways for proximal femoral fractures are available in literature and nationally with somewhat evidence based treatment consensus, but the scientific evaluation of the pathways them selves needs to be optimised.
BACKGROUND: In hip fracture surgery, the exact choice of implant often remains somewhat unclear for the individual surgeon, but the growing literature consensus has enabled publication of evidence-based surgical treatment pathways. The aim of this article was to review author pathways and national guidelines for hip fracture surgery and discuss a method for future pathway/guideline implementation and evaluation. METHODS: By a PubMed search in March 2015 six studies of surgical treatment pathways covering all types of proximal femoral fractures with publication after 1995 were identified. Also we searched the homepages of the national heath authorities and national orthopedic societies in West Europe and found 11 national or regional (in case of no national) guidelines including any type of proximal femoral fracture surgery. RESULTS: Pathway consensus is outspread (internal fixation for un-displaced femoral neck fractures and prosthesis for displaced among the elderly; and sliding hip screw for stabile- and intramedullary nails for unstable- and sub-trochanteric fractures) but they are based on a variety of criteria and definitions - and often leave wide space for the individual surgeons' subjective judgement. Appearing neither exhaustive nor exclusive, most of the pathways seem difficult to evaluate scientifically, which might explain why only very few have been evaluated for compliance, reliability and complications after implementation in an actual clinical setting. We therefore introduce a model for step-wise pathway implementation including proper scientific evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment pathways for proximal femoral fractures are available in literature and nationally with somewhat evidence based treatment consensus, but the scientific evaluation of the pathways them selves needs to be optimised.