Treatment of common hip fractures.

Mary Butler, Mary Forte, Robert L Kane, Siddharth Joglekar, Susan J Duval, Marc Swiontkowski, Timothy Wilt
{"title":"Treatment of common hip fractures.","authors":"Mary Butler,&nbsp;Mary Forte,&nbsp;Robert L Kane,&nbsp;Siddharth Joglekar,&nbsp;Susan J Duval,&nbsp;Marc Swiontkowski,&nbsp;Timothy Wilt","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To conduct a systematic review and synthesize the evidence for the effects of surgical treatments for subcapital and intertrochanteric/subtrochanteric hip fractures on patient-focused outcomes for elderly patients.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, Scirus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, and expert consultants. We also manually searched reference lists from relevant systematic reviews.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>High quality quasi-experimental design studies were used to examine relationships between patient characteristics, type of fracture, and patient outcomes. Randomized controlled trials were used to examine relationships between type of surgical treatment and patient outcomes. Patient mortality was examined with Forest plots. Narrative analysis was used for pain, quality of life (QoL), and functional outcomes due to inconsistently measured and reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mortality does not appear to differ by device class, or by devices within a class. Nor, on the whole, do pain, functioning, and QoL. Some internal fixation devices may confer earlier return to functioning over others for some patients, but such gains are very short lived. Very limited results suggest that subcapital hip fracture patients with total hip replacements have improved patient outcomes over internal fixation, but it is unclear whether these results would continue to hold if the analyses included the full complement of relevant covariates. Age, gender, prefracture functioning, and cognitive impairment appear to be related to mortality and functional outcomes. Fracture type does not appear to be independently related to patient outcomes. Again, however, the observational literature does not include the full complement of potential covariates and it is uncertain if these results would hold.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Several factors limit our ability to definitively answer the key questions posed in this study using the existing literature. Limited perspectives lead to incomplete sets of independent variables included in analyses. Specific populations are poorly defined and separated for comparative study. Fractures with widely varying biomechanical problems are often lumped together. Outcome variables are inconsistently measured and reported, making it very difficult to aggregate or even compare results. If future high quality trials continue to support the evidence that differences in devices are short term at best, within the first few weeks to few months of recovery, policy implications involve establishing the value of a shorter recovery relative to the cost of the new device. As the literature generally focuses on community dwelling elderly patients, more attention needs to be directed toward understanding implications of surgical treatment choices for the nursing home population.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 184","pages":"1-85, v"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781483/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and synthesize the evidence for the effects of surgical treatments for subcapital and intertrochanteric/subtrochanteric hip fractures on patient-focused outcomes for elderly patients.

Data sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, Scirus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, and expert consultants. We also manually searched reference lists from relevant systematic reviews.

Review methods: High quality quasi-experimental design studies were used to examine relationships between patient characteristics, type of fracture, and patient outcomes. Randomized controlled trials were used to examine relationships between type of surgical treatment and patient outcomes. Patient mortality was examined with Forest plots. Narrative analysis was used for pain, quality of life (QoL), and functional outcomes due to inconsistently measured and reported outcomes.

Results: Mortality does not appear to differ by device class, or by devices within a class. Nor, on the whole, do pain, functioning, and QoL. Some internal fixation devices may confer earlier return to functioning over others for some patients, but such gains are very short lived. Very limited results suggest that subcapital hip fracture patients with total hip replacements have improved patient outcomes over internal fixation, but it is unclear whether these results would continue to hold if the analyses included the full complement of relevant covariates. Age, gender, prefracture functioning, and cognitive impairment appear to be related to mortality and functional outcomes. Fracture type does not appear to be independently related to patient outcomes. Again, however, the observational literature does not include the full complement of potential covariates and it is uncertain if these results would hold.

Conclusions: Several factors limit our ability to definitively answer the key questions posed in this study using the existing literature. Limited perspectives lead to incomplete sets of independent variables included in analyses. Specific populations are poorly defined and separated for comparative study. Fractures with widely varying biomechanical problems are often lumped together. Outcome variables are inconsistently measured and reported, making it very difficult to aggregate or even compare results. If future high quality trials continue to support the evidence that differences in devices are short term at best, within the first few weeks to few months of recovery, policy implications involve establishing the value of a shorter recovery relative to the cost of the new device. As the literature generally focuses on community dwelling elderly patients, more attention needs to be directed toward understanding implications of surgical treatment choices for the nursing home population.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
常见髋部骨折的治疗。
目的:系统回顾和综合老年患者手术治疗肱骨下骨折和股骨粗隆间/股骨粗隆下骨折对患者预后的影响。数据来源:MEDLINE、Cochrane数据库、scius和ClinicalTrials.gov,以及专家顾问。我们还从相关的系统综述中手动检索了参考文献列表。回顾方法:采用高质量的准实验设计研究来检查患者特征、骨折类型和患者预后之间的关系。随机对照试验用于检查手术治疗类型与患者预后之间的关系。采用Forest样地检查患者死亡率。由于测量和报告的结果不一致,对疼痛、生活质量(QoL)和功能结果采用叙述性分析。结果:死亡率似乎不因器械类别或同一类别内的器械而异。总的来说,疼痛、功能和生活质量也不一样。某些内固定装置可能使某些患者较早恢复功能,但这种恢复是非常短暂的。非常有限的结果表明,行全髋关节置换术的髋关节下骨折患者的预后优于内固定,但尚不清楚如果分析包括所有相关协变量,这些结果是否继续成立。年龄、性别、骨折前功能和认知障碍似乎与死亡率和功能结局有关。骨折类型似乎与患者预后没有独立的关系。然而,再一次,观察性文献没有包括潜在协变量的全部补充,并且不确定这些结果是否成立。结论:几个因素限制了我们使用现有文献明确回答本研究中提出的关键问题的能力。有限的视角导致分析中包含的自变量集不完整。特定人群的定义不明确,并被分开进行比较研究。具有不同生物力学问题的骨折常被混为一谈。结果变量的测量和报告不一致,使得很难汇总甚至比较结果。如果未来的高质量试验继续支持这样的证据,即设备的差异充其量是短期的,在恢复后的最初几周到几个月内,政策影响涉及建立相对于新设备成本的较短恢复的价值。由于文献一般侧重于社区居住的老年患者,更多的注意力需要指向了解手术治疗选择对养老院人口的影响。
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
Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health: An Updated Systematic Review. Data Linkage Strategies to Advance Youth Suicide Prevention. Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease: An Updated Systematic Review. Health Information Exchange. Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
×
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