CORR Insights®: Is There an Association Between Prophylactic Femur Stabilization and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Bone Disease?

T. Damron
{"title":"CORR Insights®: Is There an Association Between Prophylactic Femur Stabilization and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Bone Disease?","authors":"T. Damron","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000000880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prophylactic stabilization is a topic of interest both to general orthopaedic surgeons and orthopaedic oncologists. The benefits of prophylactic stabilization compared to treatment after the pathologic fracture occurs remain poorly substantiated. Yet, it is widely assumed that “orthopaedic surgeons know it is best to stabilize lesions in the femoral neck prior to fracture.” Unfortunately, this presumption is largely unsupported by evidence. Indeed, few articles speak to this topic, and robust data supporting prophylactic fixation are sparse. According to the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), pathologic fractures have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality [2]. Decreasing that morbidity and mortality would obviously be desirable. As such, a comparison using the NIS database between patients treated with pathologic bone lesions before and after fracture suggests advantages for prophylactic stabilization in terms of blood transfusion, risk of urinary tract infection, and discharge to home. However, these advantages come at the expense of a higher likelihood of venous thromboembolic disease in the group that received prophylactic surgery [1]. According to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, prophylactic stabilization is associated with a lower rate of blood transfusion compared to pathologic fracture treatment after controlling for patient differences [10]. Additionally, compared to pathologic fracture treatment, prophylactic stabilization resulted in less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, higher percentage discharge to home, higher resumption of supportfree ambulation, and greater ability to avoid endoprosthetic reconstruction [16]. One study showed reduced direct costs and length of stay in those treated prophylactically compared to after fracture [4]. The current paper by Phillip and colleagues [17] may now be added to the knowledge base purporting a benefit to prophylactic stabilization. In this case, the purported benefit is survival.","PeriodicalId":10465,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Prophylactic stabilization is a topic of interest both to general orthopaedic surgeons and orthopaedic oncologists. The benefits of prophylactic stabilization compared to treatment after the pathologic fracture occurs remain poorly substantiated. Yet, it is widely assumed that “orthopaedic surgeons know it is best to stabilize lesions in the femoral neck prior to fracture.” Unfortunately, this presumption is largely unsupported by evidence. Indeed, few articles speak to this topic, and robust data supporting prophylactic fixation are sparse. According to the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), pathologic fractures have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality [2]. Decreasing that morbidity and mortality would obviously be desirable. As such, a comparison using the NIS database between patients treated with pathologic bone lesions before and after fracture suggests advantages for prophylactic stabilization in terms of blood transfusion, risk of urinary tract infection, and discharge to home. However, these advantages come at the expense of a higher likelihood of venous thromboembolic disease in the group that received prophylactic surgery [1]. According to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, prophylactic stabilization is associated with a lower rate of blood transfusion compared to pathologic fracture treatment after controlling for patient differences [10]. Additionally, compared to pathologic fracture treatment, prophylactic stabilization resulted in less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, higher percentage discharge to home, higher resumption of supportfree ambulation, and greater ability to avoid endoprosthetic reconstruction [16]. One study showed reduced direct costs and length of stay in those treated prophylactically compared to after fracture [4]. The current paper by Phillip and colleagues [17] may now be added to the knowledge base purporting a benefit to prophylactic stabilization. In this case, the purported benefit is survival.
CORR Insights®:转移性骨病患者预防性股骨稳定与生存之间是否存在关联?
预防性稳定是普通骨科医生和骨科肿瘤学家都感兴趣的话题。与病理性骨折发生后的治疗相比,预防性稳定的益处仍然很少得到证实。然而,人们普遍认为“骨科医生知道最好在骨折前稳定股骨颈病变。”不幸的是,这种假设在很大程度上没有证据支持。事实上,很少有文章讨论这个话题,支持预防性固定的可靠数据也很少。根据全国住院病人样本(NIS),病理性骨折与发病率和死亡率增加有关。降低这种发病率和死亡率显然是可取的。因此,使用NIS数据库对骨折前后接受病理性骨病变治疗的患者进行比较,表明预防性稳定在输血、尿路感染风险和出院方面具有优势。然而,这些优势是以接受预防性手术的患者发生静脉血栓栓塞性疾病的可能性更高为代价的。根据国家外科质量改进计划,在控制患者差异后,预防性稳定与病理性骨折治疗相比,输血率更低。此外,与病理性骨折治疗相比,预防性稳定导致更少的失血量、更短的住院时间、更高的出院率、更高的无支撑活动恢复率,以及更大的避免假体内重建的能力。一项研究表明,与骨折后相比,预防性治疗可减少直接费用和住院时间。Phillip和他的同事发表的这篇论文现在可能会被添加到知识库中,声称对预防稳定有益。在这种情况下,所谓的好处是生存。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信