Literature DB >> 28196033

Thromboembolic Disease in Patients with Metastatic Femoral Lesions: A Comparison Between Prophylactic Fixation and Fracture Fixation.

Arun Aneja1, Jimmy J Jiang, Anna Cohen-Rosenblum, Hue L Luu, Terrance D Peabody, Samer Attar, T David Luo, Rex C Haydon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We are not aware of any previous studies that have compared the rate of venous thromboembolic events in patients who underwent prophylactic intramedullary nailing because of an impending fracture with the rate in patients who underwent intramedullary nailing after a pathological fracture. The objective of the present study was to determine if the rate of venous thromboembolic events varies between patients who are managed with prophylactic fixation and those who are managed with fixation after a pathological fracture.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective comparative study in which the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all patients who had undergone femoral stabilization, either for a pathological femoral fracture or for prophylactic fixation of femoral metastatic lesion, over a period of 10 consecutive years (between 2002 and 2011) in the United States. Demographic data, comorbidities, venous thromboembolic event rates, and other common postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: Patients who were managed with prophylactic fixation had significantly higher rates of pulmonary embolism (p < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio, 2.1) and deep-vein thrombosis (p = 0.03; adjusted odds ratio, 1.5). Patients who were managed with fixation after a pathological fracture had a significantly greater need for blood transfusion, higher rates of postoperative urinary tract infection, and a decreased likelihood of being discharged to home (p < 0.001 for all).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic disease who undergo prophylactic intramedullary nailing have higher observed rates of venous thromboembolic events than those who undergo nailing for the treatment of a pathological fracture and should be actively and vigilantly managed in the postoperative period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28196033     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00023

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  Fracture risk assessment and clinical decision making for patients with metastatic bone disease.

Authors:  Timothy A Damron; Kenneth A Mann
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  CORR Insights®: What Is the Adverse Event Profile After Prophylactic Treatment of Femoral Shaft or Distal Femur Metastases?

Authors:  Timothy A Damron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  CORR Insights®: Is There an Association Between Prophylactic Femur Stabilization and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Bone Disease?

Authors:  Timothy A Damron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  Clinical Outcome and Fracture Risk Prediction of Benign Bone Tumors on the Acetabular Dome: 7-Year Clinical Experience and a Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Hongsheng Yang; Nishant Banskota; Xiang Fang; Yan Xiong; Wenli Zhang; Hong Duan
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 2.629

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.