Controversies around hip fracture treatment: clinical evidence versus trends from national registries.

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS HIP International Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-14 DOI:10.1177/11207000231177642

Peter P Schmitz, Matthijs P Somford, Simon S Jameson, B Willem Schreurs, Job L C van Susante

{"title":"Controversies around hip fracture treatment: clinical evidence versus trends from national registries.","authors":"Peter P Schmitz, Matthijs P Somford, Simon S Jameson, B Willem Schreurs, Job L C van Susante","doi":"10.1177/11207000231177642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Several controversies in the optimal treatment of femoral neck fractures persist, together with large variations in clinical practice.Methods: A narrative literature review covering 4 current controversies in the surgical management of femoral neck fractures (total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA), cemented versus uncemented HA, internal fixation versus arthroplasty, operative versus non-operative) was performed. Available literature was balanced against annual trends in the management of femoral neck fractures from the public domain of several national registries (Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand).Results: For most controversies, the literature provides stronger evidence than is reflected by variations encountered in daily practice. Implementation of clinical evidence tends to lag behind and important differences exist between countries.Conclusions: Trends of clinical practice from national registries indicate that implementation of available clinical evidence needs to be improved.","PeriodicalId":12911,"journal":{"name":"HIP International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HIP International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000231177642","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Several controversies in the optimal treatment of femoral neck fractures persist, together with large variations in clinical practice.

Methods: A narrative literature review covering 4 current controversies in the surgical management of femoral neck fractures (total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus hemiarthroplasty (HA), cemented versus uncemented HA, internal fixation versus arthroplasty, operative versus non-operative) was performed. Available literature was balanced against annual trends in the management of femoral neck fractures from the public domain of several national registries (Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand).

Results: For most controversies, the literature provides stronger evidence than is reflected by variations encountered in daily practice. Implementation of clinical evidence tends to lag behind and important differences exist between countries.

Conclusions: Trends of clinical practice from national registries indicate that implementation of available clinical evidence needs to be improved.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

围绕髋部骨折治疗的争议；临床证据与国家登记趋势。

目的：股骨颈骨折的最佳治疗方法仍存在一些争议，临床实践中也存在很大差异：方法：我们对目前股骨颈骨折手术治疗中的四种争议（全髋关节置换术（THA）与半髋关节置换术（HA）、骨水泥置换术与非骨水泥置换术、内固定术与关节置换术、手术治疗与非手术治疗）进行了叙述性文献综述。现有文献与几个国家（瑞典、挪威、荷兰、澳大利亚和新西兰）登记处公开的股骨颈骨折治疗年度趋势进行了对比：结果：对于大多数争议，文献提供的证据比日常实践中遇到的变化所反映的证据更有力。临床证据的实施往往滞后，而且各国之间存在重大差异：结论：各国登记的临床实践趋势表明，现有临床证据的实施情况有待改善。

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

HIP International 医学-整形外科

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： HIP International is the official journal of the European Hip Society. It is the only international, peer-reviewed, bi-monthly journal dedicated to diseases of the hip. HIP International considers contributions relating to hip surgery, traumatology of the hip, prosthetic surgery, biomechanics, and basic sciences relating to the hip. HIP International invites reviews from leading specialists with the aim of informing its readers of current evidence-based best practice. The journal also publishes supplements containing proceedings of symposia, special meetings or articles of special educational merit. HIP International is divided into six independent sections led by editors of the highest scientific merit. These sections are: • Biomaterials • Biomechanics • Conservative Hip Surgery • Paediatrics • Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty • Traumatology