R Morris1, U Rethnam2, B Russ3, C Topliss2. 1. Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK. rm502@doctors.org.uk. 2. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Morriston hospital, Swansea, UK. 3. Department of Engineering, Design and Mathematics, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hip fractures in the elderly represent a major source of morbidity and mortality, with allogeneic blood transfusions (ABTs) associated with increased mortality. This study assesses the ABT requirements between the most common patterns of hip fracture; intertrochanteric (IT) and intracapsular (IC). The impact of operation type on transfusion rates was also assessed. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed for all patients entered on the national hip fracture database over 1 year in a teaching hospital. Records of 559 patients were reviewed and, following exclusion criteria, 474 were evaluated (198 IT, 276 IC). Baseline haematological parameters and ABTs were identified using hospital systems. Analysis was performed in SPSS, using independent samples t tests, one-way ANOVAs and Chi square tests. RESULTS: Patient groups were matched on gender, anaesthetic type, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) grade, cognitive score and coagulation parameters. A significantly greater proportion of IT patients required an ABT during admission (39.4 vs. 22.5 %, p < 0.001). For IT fractures a greater proportion of patients required an ABT when undergoing an intramedullary nail operation compared with those requiring a dynamic hip screw (67.4 vs. 32.0 %, p < 0.001). Similarly, for IC fractures transfusion rates in patients undergoing an internal fixation were significantly lower than those undergoing hemiarthroplasty or arthroplasty (9.4 vs. 26.4 vs. 20.8 %, p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Patients with IT hip fractures are significantly more likely to require an ABT than those with IC hip fractures. Patients undergoing an intramedullary nail for IT fractures have significantly higher transfusion rates than for other types of operation.
PURPOSE:Hip fractures in the elderly represent a major source of morbidity and mortality, with allogeneic blood transfusions (ABTs) associated with increased mortality. This study assesses the ABT requirements between the most common patterns of hip fracture; intertrochanteric (IT) and intracapsular (IC). The impact of operation type on transfusion rates was also assessed. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed for all patients entered on the national hip fracture database over 1 year in a teaching hospital. Records of 559 patients were reviewed and, following exclusion criteria, 474 were evaluated (198 IT, 276 IC). Baseline haematological parameters and ABTs were identified using hospital systems. Analysis was performed in SPSS, using independent samples t tests, one-way ANOVAs and Chi square tests. RESULTS:Patient groups were matched on gender, anaesthetic type, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) grade, cognitive score and coagulation parameters. A significantly greater proportion of IT patients required an ABT during admission (39.4 vs. 22.5 %, p < 0.001). For IT fractures a greater proportion of patients required an ABT when undergoing an intramedullary nail operation compared with those requiring a dynamic hip screw (67.4 vs. 32.0 %, p < 0.001). Similarly, for IC fractures transfusion rates in patients undergoing an internal fixation were significantly lower than those undergoing hemiarthroplasty or arthroplasty (9.4 vs. 26.4 vs. 20.8 %, p = 0.033). CONCLUSION:Patients with IT hip fractures are significantly more likely to require an ABT than those with IC hip fractures. Patients undergoing an intramedullary nail for IT fractures have significantly higher transfusion rates than for other types of operation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blood transfusion; Hip fracture; Intertrochanteric; Intracapsular
Authors: Jeffrey L Carson; Michael L Terrin; Helaine Noveck; David W Sanders; Bernard R Chaitman; George G Rhoads; George Nemo; Karen Dragert; Lauren Beaupre; Kevin Hildebrand; William Macaulay; Courtland Lewis; Donald Richard Cook; Gwendolyn Dobbin; Khwaja J Zakriya; Fred S Apple; Rebecca A Horney; Jay Magaziner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jorien M Willems; Anton J M de Craen; Rob G H H Nelissen; Peter A van Luijt; Rudi G J Westendorp; Gerard J Blauw Journal: Maturitas Date: 2012-04-21 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Suzanne E Bentler; Li Liu; Maksym Obrizan; Elizabeth A Cook; Kara B Wright; John F Geweke; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Claire E Pavlik; Robert B Wallace; Robert L Ohsfeldt; Michael P Jones; Gary E Rosenthal; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-10-04 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Raj M Amin; Varun Puvanesarajah; Yash P Chaudhry; Matthew J Best; Sandesh S Rao; Steven M Frank; Erik A Hasenboehler Journal: World J Orthop Date: 2021-05-18
Authors: Suk Yong Jang; Yong Han Cha; Jun Il Yoo; Taeho Oh; Jung Taek Kim; Chan Ho Park; Won Sik Choy; Yong Chan Ha; Kyung Hoi Koo Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 2.153