header advert
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXVII | Pages 309 - 309
1 Sep 2012
Palm H Krasheninnikoff M Holck K Lemser T Foss N Jacobsen S Kehlet H Gebuhr P
Full Access

Introduction

We implemented an exhaustive operative and supervision algorithm for surgical treatment of hip fractures primarily based on own previously published literature. The purpose was to improve supervision and reduce the rate of reoperations.

Materials and methods

2000 consecutive unselected patients above 50 years admitted with a hip fracture were included, 1000 of these prospectively after implementation of the algorithm. Demographic parameters, hospital treatment and reoperations within the first postoperative year were assessed from patient records.

The algorithm dictated the surgical treatment based on three objective patient parameters: age, new mobility score and fracture classification on pre-operative anterior-posterior and axial radiographs. Intra capsular fractures were treated with two parallel implants, a sliding hip screw, an arthroplasty or resection of the femoral head. Extra capsular fractures were treated with a sliding hip screw or an intramedullary nail. Supervision of junior registrars was mandatory for the prosthesis and intramedullary nail procedures.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 93-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 138 - 138
1 May 2011
Palm H Lysén C Krasheninnikoff M Holck K Jacobsen S Gebuhr P
Full Access

Introduction: The use of intramedullary nailing (IMHS) has increased at the expense of the dynamic hip screw (DHS), although the outcome is not different in the studies of pertrochanteric fractures (PTF), known as AO/OTA type 31A1-2 fractures with a preoperative intact lateral femoral wall. We therefore investigated the two implants in the subgroup of PTF with a fractured greater trochanter.

Materials and Methods: Six hundred thirty-five consecutive patients with PTF fixated by a short IMHS or by a DHS mounted on a four hole lateral plate were prospectively included between 2002 and 2008. The fractures were preoperatively classified according to AO/OTA classification system, including status of the greater and lesser trochanter. The integrity of the lateral femoral wall, fracture reduction and implant positioning were assessed postoperatively. Reoperations due to technical failures were recorded for one year.

Results: Among the 311 patients sustaining a PTF with a fractured greater trochanter, 4% (6/158) operated with an IMHS were reoperated compared to 14% (22/153) with a DHS (p=0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis combining demographic and biomechanical parameters showed the IMHS to have a lower rate of reoperation (p=0.002).

During the operative procedure, the lateral femoral wall was fractured in 6% (9/158) of patients, in which an IMHS was performed versus 28% (42/153) operated with a DHS (p< 0.001). Among the DHS, a fractured lateral femoral wall was confirmed to be a predictor of a reoperation (31% (13/42) of patients with a fractured lateral femoral wall versus 8% (9/111) with an intact lateral femoral wall, p< 0.001).

As in other studies, the different reoperation rate would have been overseen in the main group of AO/ OTA type 31A1-2 PTF fractures (4% (6/164) IMHS versus 6% (30/471) DHS, p=0.196).

Conclusion: The IMHS seems to have a lower reoperation rate than the DHS in the subgroup of PTF with a fractured greater trochanter. In contrast to the DHS, the IMHS presumably keeps the integrity of the lateral femoral wall. In future studies, PTF should be divided into subgroups.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 92-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 307 - 307
1 May 2010
Palm H Krasheninnikoff M Holck K Lemser T Foss N Kehlet H Jacobsen S Sonneholm S Gebuhr P
Full Access

Introduction: We derived an exhaustive operative and supervision guideline for the treatment of hip fractures from the current international and own published literature, and implemented the guidelines in our department.

Methods: 1274 unselected consecutive patients admitted with a hip fracture were included, 336 of these prospectively after implementation of the new guideline. Demographic parameters, hospital treatment and re-operations were assessed from patient journals. Re-operations were recorded after six months.

Results: 95% (320/336) of operative procedures were found to have followed the new guideline treatment compared to 78% (733/938) prior to its introduction (p< 0.001 X2). Retrospectively we found that only 12% (121/1053) of operative procedures performed as the new guideline prescribes were re-operated compared to 24% (53/221) of operative procedures performed with other methods (p< 0.001 X2). In logistic regression analysis combining sex, age, ASA score, cognitive function, new mobility score, time from admission to operation and level of surgeon’s experience, not following the guideline was the only significant predictor for re-operation (p< 0.001 log. reg.)

After implementing the guideline, the rate of unsupervised junior registrars performing operations declined from 20% (188/938) to 6% (21/336, p< 0.001 X2). The rate of reoperations declined from 15% (139/938) to 10% (35/336, p=0.044 X2, p=0.043 log.reg.), with a 20% (85/436) to 13% (23/174) decline for intracapsulary and an 11% (54/502) to 7% (12/162) decline for extracapsulary fractures.

Conclusion: An exhaustive operative guideline for hip fracture treatment can be implemented. In our case, the guideline both raised the rate of supervision and reduced the rate of reoperations.