Mario Ronga1, Daniele Bonzini2, Marco Valoroso2, Giuseppe La Barbera2, Jacopo Tamini2, Mario Cherubino3, Paolo Cherubino2. 1. Department of Medicine and Health Sciences 'Vincenzo Tiberio', University of Molise, Campobasso - Italy; Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences (DBSV), University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. Electronic address: mario.ronga@unimol.it. 2. Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences (DBSV), University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. 3. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences (DBSV), University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anaemia in patients with trochanteric fracture is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and it is an independent risk factor for functional mobility of patients. Several authors have reported the blood loss following operative treatment comparing different fixation systems but few authors have evaluated many associated variables that could influence the perioperative blood loss. PURPOSE: To evaluate the blood loss in patients that had their trochanteric fracture stabilized with dynamic hip screw (DHS) or Gamma nail. Multivariate analysis of different variables that can influence blood loss was carried out (type of fracture, antiaggregant or anticoagulant therapy, time to surgery). The hypothesis was that there is no difference in terms of blood loss in patients with trochanteric fracture treated with DHS or Gamma nail considering all these variables. MATERIALS & METHODS: Perioperative blood loss was evaluated in 417 consecutive patients treated for trochanteric fracture with DHS or Gamma nail between January 2010 and March 2013. The perioperative blood loss was calculated using the Lisander formula modified by Foss-Kehlet based on pre- and post-operative haemoglobin values and transfusion rates. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed integrating the following variables: type of fracture (A1 vs A2), antiaggregant/anticoagulant therapy vs no therapy, time to surgery (<24 vs >24 hours from trauma), type of implant (DHS vs Gamma nail). RESULTS: A significant blood loss (p <0.05) was observed between A1 and A2 fracture types (1247ml vs 1796.7ml), antiaggregant/anticoagulant therapy and no therapy (1592.7ml vs 1470.2ml), time-to-surgery <24 and >24 hours from trauma (1584.4ml vs 1323.9ml), DHS and Gamma nail (894.7ml vs 1720.6ml). At multivariate analysis, in the A1 fracture groups the DHS showed a significant lower blood loss compared to Gamma nail (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: According to the perioperative blood loss, DHS should be used in A1 fractures while Gamma nail can be taking in account for the unstable A2 fractures.
INTRODUCTION:Anaemia in patients with trochanteric fracture is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and it is an independent risk factor for functional mobility of patients. Several authors have reported the blood loss following operative treatment comparing different fixation systems but few authors have evaluated many associated variables that could influence the perioperative blood loss. PURPOSE: To evaluate the blood loss in patients that had their trochanteric fracture stabilized with dynamic hip screw (DHS) or Gamma nail. Multivariate analysis of different variables that can influence blood loss was carried out (type of fracture, antiaggregant or anticoagulant therapy, time to surgery). The hypothesis was that there is no difference in terms of blood loss in patients with trochanteric fracture treated with DHS or Gamma nail considering all these variables. MATERIALS & METHODS: Perioperative blood loss was evaluated in 417 consecutive patients treated for trochanteric fracture with DHS or Gamma nail between January 2010 and March 2013. The perioperative blood loss was calculated using the Lisander formula modified by Foss-Kehlet based on pre- and post-operative haemoglobin values and transfusion rates. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed integrating the following variables: type of fracture (A1 vs A2), antiaggregant/anticoagulant therapy vs no therapy, time to surgery (<24 vs >24 hours from trauma), type of implant (DHS vs Gamma nail). RESULTS: A significant blood loss (p <0.05) was observed between A1 and A2 fracture types (1247ml vs 1796.7ml), antiaggregant/anticoagulant therapy and no therapy (1592.7ml vs 1470.2ml), time-to-surgery <24 and >24 hours from trauma (1584.4ml vs 1323.9ml), DHS and Gamma nail (894.7ml vs 1720.6ml). At multivariate analysis, in the A1 fracture groups the DHS showed a significant lower blood loss compared to Gamma nail (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: According to the perioperative blood loss, DHS should be used in A1 fractures while Gamma nail can be taking in account for the unstable A2 fractures.