Health economics for intra-capsular hip fractures undertaking fixation

Anatole Wiik, Thomas Ashdown, Ian Holloway
{"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
髋关节囊内骨折固定术的卫生经济学研究
背景 髋关节骨折是全世界老年人常见的肌肉骨骼损伤,需要进行手术治疗。髋关节囊内骨折的主要手术方式是关节置换术,而固定术所占比例较小。目的 确定对髋关节囊内骨折患者最有利的固定方法。方法 对 2012-2018 年间所有采用两种常用固定方法治疗的髋关节囊内骨折进行登记审计。对患者笔记、电子记录和临床代码进行了成本效益评估。术后至少 1 年收集了经过验证的生活质量测量数据。结果 在回顾性研究期间,共有 83 名患者接受了囊内骨折固定术。其中47例采用松质骨螺钉固定,36例采用滑动髋螺钉固定,病例的年龄、性别、并发症和骨折结构相当。两种固定方法在失血量、顶端距离、辐射暴露、住院时间、放射学结合时间、塌陷、血管坏死或再次手术方面没有明显差异。逻辑回归分析表明,移位性囊内髋部骨折与不良后果有显著相关性,相对几率为 7.25。需要再次手术的患者分别为 9 人(19%)和 4 人(11%)。在 EQ-5D 和视觉模拟评分相当的情况下,医疗资源组关税和植入成本没有明显差异。结论 不同的固定方式没有明显的优势,但无论如何,需要再次手术的患者人数较多。最初的骨折移位和患者年龄预示了这一点。可能需要仔细考虑关节置换术的健康经济性和患者利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and associated factors of clubfoot in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia: A hospital-based study Smoking cessation prior to elective total joint arthroplasty results in sustained abstinence postoperatively Arthroscopic M-shaped suture fixation for tibia avulsion fracture of posterior cruciate ligament: A modified technique and case series Epidemiology of work-related hand and wrist injuries in a referral center: A descriptive study Intraoperative application of three-dimensional printed guides in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1