Literature DB >> 31321591

Short versus long intramedullary nails for treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures (AO 31-A1 and AO 31-A2): a systematic review.

Pernille Bovbjerg1, Lonnie Froberg2, Hagen Schmal2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Intramedullary nails are used increasingly in the surgical treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures (IFFs). However, controversy has developed regarding the length of the nail itself. The purpose of this study is to investigate differences in reoperation rate, as well as operating time, length of hospital stay and 1-year mortality between short and long intramedullary nails in IFF-type AO 31-A1 and AO 31-A2. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted using PUBMED, Embase and Cochrane Central (January 1, 2000-August 1, 2018). Articles written in English, German or Scandinavian language were included. STUDY SELECTION: Studies with patients > 18 years having an IFF comparing short nail with long nail and a least one of the clinical outcomes on interest (reoperation rate, operating time, length of hospital stay, 1-year mortality) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: A total of 2680 studies were identified and screened according to PRISMA guidelines. Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and non-randomized studies was used to assess the risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated.
CONCLUSIONS: No difference in complication rate leading to reoperation was found in the individual studies or in the meta-analysis [OR 0.89 (0.49; 1.16)]. There is no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two nail cohorts; a shorter operating time inserting a short nail compared to inserting a long nail was found (p < 0.0001). In the meta-analysis, we found no difference in 1-year mortality [OR 1.20 (0.80; 1.79)].

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complications; Intertrochanteric fracture; Intramedullary nail

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31321591     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-019-02495-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  33 in total

1.  Comprehensive geriatric care for patients with hip fractures: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  Anders Prestmo; Gunhild Hagen; Olav Sletvold; Jorunn L Helbostad; Pernille Thingstad; Kristin Taraldsen; Stian Lydersen; Vidar Halsteinli; Turi Saltnes; Sarah E Lamb; Lars G Johnsen; Ingvild Saltvedt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  O Johnell; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-09-16       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Combined orthogeriatric care in the management of hip fractures: a prospective study.

Authors:  R Khan; C Fernandez; F Kashifl; R Shedden; P Diggory
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  Costs and Complications of Short Versus Long Cephalomedullary Nailing of OTA 31-A2 Proximal Femur Fractures in U.S. Veterans.

Authors:  Henry Krigbaum; Steven Takemoto; Hubert T Kim; Alfred C Kuo
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.512

5.  The 2004 Marshall Urist award: delays until surgery after hip fracture increases mortality.

Authors:  Kevin J McGuire; Joseph Bernstein; Daniel Polsky; Jeffrey H Silber
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: management and current controversies.

Authors:  Dean G Lorich; David S Geller; Jason H Nielson
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2004

7.  Factors affecting mortality of frail hip-fractured elderly patients.

Authors:  Avital Hershkovitz; Irena Polatov; Yechayaou Beloosesky; Shai Brill
Journal:  Arch Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 3.250

Review 8.  Epidemiology and social costs of hip fracture.

Authors:  Nicola Veronese; Stefania Maggi
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2018-04-20       Impact factor: 2.586

9.  Complications following Treatment of Trochanteric Fractures with the Gamma3 Nail: Is the Latest Version of Gamma Nail Superior to Its Predecessor?

Authors:  Dimitrios Georgiannos; Vasilios Lampridis; Ilias Bisbinas
Journal:  Surg Res Pract       Date:  2014-02-06

Review 10.  Long versus short cephalomedullary nail for trochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31-A1, A2 and A3): a systematic review.

Authors:  John Dunn; Nicholas Kusnezov; Julia Bader; Brian R Waterman; Justin Orr; Philip J Belmont
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2016-04-19
View more
  3 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Cephalomedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in older adults.

Authors:  Sharon R Lewis; Richard Macey; James R Gill; Martyn J Parker; Xavier L Griffin
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-01-26

Review 3.  Optimal surgical methods to treat intertrochanteric fracture: a Bayesian network meta-analysis based on 36 randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Yan-Xiao Cheng; Xia Sheng
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 2.359

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.