Risk Stratification of Operatively Treated Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures Reveals Differences in Short-Term Outcomes and Procedure Costs Between Sliding Hip Screw Versus Short Cephalomedullary Nail

S. Konda, Rachel A. Ranson, Ariana Lott, Tensae Assefa, Joseph P. Johnson, A. Ganta, K. Egol
{"title":"Risk Stratification of Operatively Treated Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures Reveals Differences in Short-Term Outcomes and Procedure Costs Between Sliding Hip Screw Versus Short Cephalomedullary Nail","authors":"S. Konda, Rachel A. Ranson, Ariana Lott, Tensae Assefa, Joseph P. Johnson, A. Ganta, K. Egol","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study sought to retrospectively compare short-term outcomes between sliding hip screw (SHS) fixation versus short cephalomedullary nailing (CMN) in a risk-stratified cohort of geriatric intertrochanteric hip fracture patients. Data of 458 patients, aged 55 years and older, who sustained intertrochanteric fractures (OTA 31A1-3) and were treated with either SHS or short CMN from October 2014 to March 2019 were collected. Patient demographics, injury severity, and functional status were used to calculate a score using the Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged system. Based on the Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged tool, 229 patients (50%) were placed into a low-risk cohort, whereas 229 patients (50%) were placed into a high-risk cohort. Results: Four hundred eleven patients were treated with CMN and 47 patients were treated with SHS. Procedural time was shorter for low- and high-risk patients treated with CMN versus SHS. Need for transfusion did not differ between implant types in either risk cohort. In the high-risk cohort, incidence of major complications and number of overall inpatient complications were higher in the SHS group. In the low-risk cohort, patients with SHS were discharged home more often and ambulated a greater distance before discharge. Although total costs did not differ between groups, procedural costs were lower in the SHS group for both risk cohorts. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that implant type was a significant predictor of all aforementioned significant bivariate analyses. Conclusion: In low-risk and high-risk patients, those treated with CMN had shorter surgical time but higher procedural costs. A decrease in implant cost may optimize the value of shorter procedural times associated with CMN use, especially for high-risk patients. Our results suggested that high-risk hip fracture patients should be treated with CMN for both stable and unstable fractures and low-risk stable fracture patterns should be treated with SHS.","PeriodicalId":145112,"journal":{"name":"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00242","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

Objective: This study sought to retrospectively compare short-term outcomes between sliding hip screw (SHS) fixation versus short cephalomedullary nailing (CMN) in a risk-stratified cohort of geriatric intertrochanteric hip fracture patients. Data of 458 patients, aged 55 years and older, who sustained intertrochanteric fractures (OTA 31A1-3) and were treated with either SHS or short CMN from October 2014 to March 2019 were collected. Patient demographics, injury severity, and functional status were used to calculate a score using the Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged system. Based on the Score for Trauma Triage in the Geriatric and Middle-Aged tool, 229 patients (50%) were placed into a low-risk cohort, whereas 229 patients (50%) were placed into a high-risk cohort. Results: Four hundred eleven patients were treated with CMN and 47 patients were treated with SHS. Procedural time was shorter for low- and high-risk patients treated with CMN versus SHS. Need for transfusion did not differ between implant types in either risk cohort. In the high-risk cohort, incidence of major complications and number of overall inpatient complications were higher in the SHS group. In the low-risk cohort, patients with SHS were discharged home more often and ambulated a greater distance before discharge. Although total costs did not differ between groups, procedural costs were lower in the SHS group for both risk cohorts. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that implant type was a significant predictor of all aforementioned significant bivariate analyses. Conclusion: In low-risk and high-risk patients, those treated with CMN had shorter surgical time but higher procedural costs. A decrease in implant cost may optimize the value of shorter procedural times associated with CMN use, especially for high-risk patients. Our results suggested that high-risk hip fracture patients should be treated with CMN for both stable and unstable fractures and low-risk stable fracture patterns should be treated with SHS.
手术治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的风险分层揭示滑动髋关节螺钉与短头髓内钉在短期疗效和手术费用上的差异
目的:本研究旨在回顾性比较滑动髋螺钉(SHS)固定与短头髓内钉(CMN)在风险分层的老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者中的短期疗效。收集了2014年10月至2019年3月期间458例55岁及以上的持续转子间骨折(OTA 31A1-3)并接受SHS或短CMN治疗的患者的数据。使用老年和中年创伤分诊评分系统,使用患者人口统计学、损伤严重程度和功能状态来计算得分。根据老年和中年创伤分诊评分(Score for Trauma Triage in Geriatric and中年人)工具,229例患者(50%)被置于低风险队列,229例患者(50%)被置于高风险队列。结果:CMN治疗411例,SHS治疗47例。与SHS相比,接受CMN治疗的低风险和高风险患者的手术时间更短。在两个风险队列中,不同类型的植入物对输血的需求没有差异。在高危队列中,SHS组的主要并发症发生率和住院总并发症数均高于SHS组。在低风险队列中,SHS患者出院回家的次数更多,出院前走动的距离也更大。虽然总费用在两组之间没有差异,但在两个风险队列中,SHS组的手术费用都较低。多变量分析表明,种植体类型是上述所有显著双变量分析的显著预测因子。结论:在低危和高危患者中,CMN治疗手术时间较短,但手术费用较高。植入物成本的降低可以优化与CMN使用相关的较短手术时间的价值,特别是对高危患者。我们的研究结果表明,高风险髋部骨折患者无论是稳定型骨折还是不稳定型骨折都应采用CMN治疗,而低风险的稳定型骨折则应采用SHS治疗。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信