{"title":"Health economics for intra-capsular hip fractures undertaking fixation","authors":"Anatole Wiik, Thomas Ashdown, Ian Holloway","doi":"10.5312/wjo.v15.i1.30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n Hip fracture is a common musculoskeletal injury in the elderly requiring surgery worldwide. The operative mainstay of intra-capsular hip fractures is arthroplasty with a smaller proportion for fixation.\n AIM\n To determine the most beneficial method of fixation for patients with intra-capsular hip fractures.\n METHODS\n A registered audit from 2012-2018 was conducted on all intra-capsular hip fractures treated with 2 commonly used fixation methods. Patient notes, electronic records and clinical codes for cost benefit were evaluated. A validated quality of life measure was collected at least 1 year after surgery.\n RESULTS\n A total of 83 patients were identified with intra-capsular fractures undergoing fixation during the retrospective period. There were 47 cannulated cancellous screw and 36 sliding hip screw fixations with the case mix comparable for age, gender, co-morbidities and fracture configuration. There was no significant difference in blood loss, tip apex distance, radiation exposure, length of stay, radiological union time, collapse, avascular necrosis or re-operation between fixation methods. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated displaced intracapsular hip fractures correlated significantly with an undesirable outcome conferring a relative odds ratio of 7.25. There were 9 (19%) and 4 (11%) patients respectively, who required re-operation. There was no significant difference in health resource group tariff and implant cost with comparable EQ-5D and visual analogue scores.\n CONCLUSION\n No significant advantage was identified with differing fixation type, but irrespective there were a high number of patients requiring re-operation. This was predicted by initial fracture displacement and patient age. Arthroplasty may need to be carefully considered for health economics and patient benefit.","PeriodicalId":506838,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Orthopedics","volume":"111 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v15.i1.30","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Hip fracture is a common musculoskeletal injury in the elderly requiring surgery worldwide. The operative mainstay of intra-capsular hip fractures is arthroplasty with a smaller proportion for fixation.
AIM
To determine the most beneficial method of fixation for patients with intra-capsular hip fractures.
METHODS
A registered audit from 2012-2018 was conducted on all intra-capsular hip fractures treated with 2 commonly used fixation methods. Patient notes, electronic records and clinical codes for cost benefit were evaluated. A validated quality of life measure was collected at least 1 year after surgery.
RESULTS
A total of 83 patients were identified with intra-capsular fractures undergoing fixation during the retrospective period. There were 47 cannulated cancellous screw and 36 sliding hip screw fixations with the case mix comparable for age, gender, co-morbidities and fracture configuration. There was no significant difference in blood loss, tip apex distance, radiation exposure, length of stay, radiological union time, collapse, avascular necrosis or re-operation between fixation methods. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated displaced intracapsular hip fractures correlated significantly with an undesirable outcome conferring a relative odds ratio of 7.25. There were 9 (19%) and 4 (11%) patients respectively, who required re-operation. There was no significant difference in health resource group tariff and implant cost with comparable EQ-5D and visual analogue scores.
CONCLUSION
No significant advantage was identified with differing fixation type, but irrespective there were a high number of patients requiring re-operation. This was predicted by initial fracture displacement and patient age. Arthroplasty may need to be carefully considered for health economics and patient benefit.