No Differences in Major In-Hospital Outcome Metrics When Comparing the Direct Lateral Approach to the Posterior Approach for Hemiarthroplasties After Traumatic Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-08-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/21514593241278390
Steven Morgan, Stephanie Jarvis, Alexander Conti, Kelsey Staudinger, Cassandra Reynolds, Samantha Greenseid, David Bar-Or
{"title":"No Differences in Major In-Hospital Outcome Metrics When Comparing the Direct Lateral Approach to the Posterior Approach for Hemiarthroplasties After Traumatic Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures.","authors":"Steven Morgan, Stephanie Jarvis, Alexander Conti, Kelsey Staudinger, Cassandra Reynolds, Samantha Greenseid, David Bar-Or","doi":"10.1177/21514593241278390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The surgical approach of hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures remains debated. The study objective was to compare in-hospital outcomes for geriatric displaced femoral neck fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty based on surgical approach (direct lateral vs. posterior approach).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included geriatric patients (≥60 y/o) admitted 7/1/2016-3/31/2020 treated with hemiarthroplasty. Outcomes included: operative time (incision to closure), length of stay (HLOS), and blood loss volume (mL). The Harding direct lateral approach was compared to the posterior approach; <i>P</i> < .05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 164 patients (59% direct lateral, 41% posterior). Patients treated with the direct lateral approach had an advanced directive (<i>P</i> = .03), dementia, (<i>P</i> = .03), or were functionally dependent (<i>P</i> = .03) more often than patients treated with the posterior approach. Time to surgery was comparable between groups (<i>P</i> = .52). The direct lateral approach was associated with a shorter operative time (2.3 vs. 2.8 h, <i>P</i> = .03), a longer HLOS (5.0 vs. 4.0 days, <i>P</i> < .01), and a lower median volume of blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL, <i>P</i> = .01), than the posterior approach, respectively. In a stratified analysis, for those who <i>were not</i> functionally dependent, <i>did not have</i> dementia or an advanced directive, the direct lateral approach led to a longer HLOS (<i>P</i> = .03) and shorter operative time (<i>P</i> = .04) than the posterior approach. Whereas among those <i>who were</i> functionally dependent, <i>had</i> dementia or <i>had</i> an advanced directive, the direct lateral approach led to less blood loss (<i>P</i> = .02) than the posterior approach.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While those treated with the direct lateral approach lost significantly less blood, they had a significantly longer HLOS than those treated with the posterior approach. Comorbidities significantly modified outcomes, which may suggest their presence could assist with treatment decisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found neither approach, the direct lateral nor posterior, to be superior. Surgical approach could remain physician preference.</p>","PeriodicalId":48568,"journal":{"name":"Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation","volume":"15 ","pages":"21514593241278390"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331455/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21514593241278390","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The surgical approach of hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures remains debated. The study objective was to compare in-hospital outcomes for geriatric displaced femoral neck fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty based on surgical approach (direct lateral vs. posterior approach).

Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study included geriatric patients (≥60 y/o) admitted 7/1/2016-3/31/2020 treated with hemiarthroplasty. Outcomes included: operative time (incision to closure), length of stay (HLOS), and blood loss volume (mL). The Harding direct lateral approach was compared to the posterior approach; P < .05.

Results: There were 164 patients (59% direct lateral, 41% posterior). Patients treated with the direct lateral approach had an advanced directive (P = .03), dementia, (P = .03), or were functionally dependent (P = .03) more often than patients treated with the posterior approach. Time to surgery was comparable between groups (P = .52). The direct lateral approach was associated with a shorter operative time (2.3 vs. 2.8 h, P = .03), a longer HLOS (5.0 vs. 4.0 days, P < .01), and a lower median volume of blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL, P = .01), than the posterior approach, respectively. In a stratified analysis, for those who were not functionally dependent, did not have dementia or an advanced directive, the direct lateral approach led to a longer HLOS (P = .03) and shorter operative time (P = .04) than the posterior approach. Whereas among those who were functionally dependent, had dementia or had an advanced directive, the direct lateral approach led to less blood loss (P = .02) than the posterior approach.

Discussion: While those treated with the direct lateral approach lost significantly less blood, they had a significantly longer HLOS than those treated with the posterior approach. Comorbidities significantly modified outcomes, which may suggest their presence could assist with treatment decisions.

Conclusions: This study found neither approach, the direct lateral nor posterior, to be superior. Surgical approach could remain physician preference.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
外伤性股骨颈移位骨折后采用直接侧方入路与后方入路进行半关节置换术的主要住院结果指标无差别
简介半关节成形术治疗移位性股骨颈骨折的手术方法仍存在争议。本研究旨在比较老年移位性股骨颈骨折采用半关节置换术治疗的院内疗效,具体取决于手术方式(直接外侧入路与后侧入路):这项回顾性队列研究纳入了2016年1月7日至2020年3月31日入院接受半关节成形术治疗的老年患者(≥60岁/o)。研究结果包括:手术时间(从切口到闭合)、住院时间(HLOS)和失血量(毫升)。Harding直接侧方入路与后方入路进行了比较;P < .05.结果:结果:共有 164 名患者(59% 直接外侧入路,41% 后路入路)。采用直接外侧入路治疗的患者比采用后路入路治疗的患者更多具有高级指示(P = .03)、痴呆(P = .03)或功能依赖(P = .03)。两组患者的手术时间相当(P = .52)。与后路方法相比,直接侧路方法的手术时间更短(2.3 小时对 2.8 小时,P = .03),HLOS 更长(5.0 天对 4.0 天,P < .01),中位失血量更低(50 毫升对 100 毫升,P = .01)。在分层分析中,对于无功能依赖、无痴呆症或无预先指令的患者,直接侧位入路比后位入路的HLOS更长(P = .03),手术时间更短(P = .04)。而在那些功能依赖、患有痴呆症或有预先指令的患者中,直接侧位入路比后位入路的失血量更少(P = .02):讨论:虽然采用直接侧位入路治疗的患者失血量明显较少,但他们的HLOS明显长于采用后位入路治疗的患者。合并症明显改变了治疗结果,这可能表明合并症的存在有助于做出治疗决定:本研究发现,直接侧位或后位两种方法都没有优越性。手术方法仍是医生的首选。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation (GOS) is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that provides clinical information concerning musculoskeletal conditions affecting the aging population. GOS focuses on care of geriatric orthopaedic patients and their subsequent rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Beyond the Clock: Understanding Delays in Hip Fracture Surgery. The Association Between Spinopelvic Parameters and Hip Fracture Types. Association of Fall Timing and Location With Clinical Characteristics in Geriatric Hip Fracture Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study. Impact of Dementia on Perioperative Complications in Elderly Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective National Inpatient Sample Database Study. Comparative Outcomes of Surgical Interventions for Femoral Neck Fractures: A Multicenter Analysis and Review of the Literature.
×
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:604180095
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