Arthroplasty treatment options for femoral neck fractures in the elderly: A network meta-analysis of randomized control trials

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2024.111875
Arhum Saleem , Charles C. Lin , Utkarsh Anil , Steven M. Rivero
{"title":"Arthroplasty treatment options for femoral neck fractures in the elderly: A network meta-analysis of randomized control trials","authors":"Arhum Saleem ,&nbsp;Charles C. Lin ,&nbsp;Utkarsh Anil ,&nbsp;Steven M. Rivero","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2024.111875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Treatment options for displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in elderly patients include unipolar hemiarthroplasty (UHA), bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA), unipolar total hip arthroplasty (UTHA), and dual-mobility total hip arthroplasty (DMTHA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) quantitatively compares these treatments to identify the optimal surgical technique.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search in Medline (PubMed), Cochrane, and EMBASE databases was conducted. RCTs comparing UHA, BHA, UTHA, or DMTHA were included. Interventions were ranked using the SUCRA score.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among 5,542 studies, 12 RCTs met inclusion criteria, involving 1,490 patients. Procedures were ranked by prosthetic dislocation, mortality, operating time, intraoperative blood loss, revision rate, Harris Hip Score (HHS). BHA ranked the best in dislocation rate, intraoperative blood loss and mortality. UHA had the shortest operating time. DMTHA had the greatest ranking for HHS. However, the differences between these treatment modalities were rarely statistically significantly different.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>A variety of arthroplasty procedures can be used to treat displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures. Our results indicate that while BHA resulted in the best post-operative ranking amongst the compared treatment strategies in terms of dislocation rates, blood loss and mortality, the differences between the treatment options does not clearly favor a specific treatment option.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54978,"journal":{"name":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","volume":"55 11","pages":"Article 111875"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138324006041","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Treatment options for displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in elderly patients include unipolar hemiarthroplasty (UHA), bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA), unipolar total hip arthroplasty (UTHA), and dual-mobility total hip arthroplasty (DMTHA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) quantitatively compares these treatments to identify the optimal surgical technique.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search in Medline (PubMed), Cochrane, and EMBASE databases was conducted. RCTs comparing UHA, BHA, UTHA, or DMTHA were included. Interventions were ranked using the SUCRA score.

Results

Among 5,542 studies, 12 RCTs met inclusion criteria, involving 1,490 patients. Procedures were ranked by prosthetic dislocation, mortality, operating time, intraoperative blood loss, revision rate, Harris Hip Score (HHS). BHA ranked the best in dislocation rate, intraoperative blood loss and mortality. UHA had the shortest operating time. DMTHA had the greatest ranking for HHS. However, the differences between these treatment modalities were rarely statistically significantly different.

Conclusion

A variety of arthroplasty procedures can be used to treat displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures. Our results indicate that while BHA resulted in the best post-operative ranking amongst the compared treatment strategies in terms of dislocation rates, blood loss and mortality, the differences between the treatment options does not clearly favor a specific treatment option.

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
老年人股骨颈骨折的关节成形术治疗方案:随机对照试验网络荟萃分析
引言老年患者股骨颈内移位骨折的治疗方法包括单极半关节成形术(UHA)、双极半关节成形术(BHA)、单极全髋关节成形术(UTHA)和双活动全髋关节成形术(DMTHA)。该随机对照试验(RCT)网络荟萃分析(NMA)对这些治疗方法进行了定量比较,以确定最佳手术技术。纳入了比较 UHA、BHA、UTHA 或 DMTHA 的 RCT。结果在 5,542 项研究中,有 12 项研究符合纳入标准,涉及 1,490 名患者。根据假体脱位、死亡率、手术时间、术中失血量、翻修率、Harris髋关节评分(HHS)对手术进行了排名。BHA在脱位率、术中失血量和死亡率方面名列前茅。UHA 的手术时间最短。DMTHA的HHS排名最高。然而,这些治疗方式之间的差异在统计学上很少有显著性差异。我们的研究结果表明,虽然在脱位率、失血量和死亡率方面,BHA在比较的治疗策略中术后排名最佳,但治疗方案之间的差异并不明显倾向于某种特定的治疗方案。
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
4.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
699
审稿时长
96 days
期刊介绍: Injury was founded in 1969 and is an international journal dealing with all aspects of trauma care and accident surgery. Our primary aim is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, techniques and information among all members of the trauma team.
期刊最新文献
Effects of major trauma care organisation on mortality in a European level 1 trauma centre: A retrospective analysis of 2016-2023 Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of cement augmentation for the fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures from a European perspective Avoiding “a piece of paper on the wall that everyone ignores”: A qualitative study on the barriers for implementing open fracture guidelines A finite element analysis of the trapezoidal plate. How to get a stable fixation at different fracture lines? “Utility of social vulnerability index in trauma: 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