Anglen Jeffrey O, Weinstein James N
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana University, 541 Clinical Drive, Suite 600, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Apr;90(4):700-7. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00517.
A new method of fixation for intertrochanteric hip fractures that involves the use of an intramedullary nail that interlocks proximally into the femoral head was introduced in the early 1990s. Anecdotal observation of practice patterns during the Part II (oral) American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery examination suggested that the use of this method had increased substantially in recent years in comparison with the more traditional sliding compression screw technique. A study of the Part II database was undertaken to detect changing patterns of care for intertrochanteric fractures.
During the process of Board certification, candidates for the Part II (oral) examination submit a six-month surgical case list and patient data into a secure database. The database was searched for all intertrochanteric fractures (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code 820.20 or 820.21) over a seven-year period (1999 through 2006). The cases were categorized by intramedullary nail or plate fixation on the basis of surgeon-reported Current Procedural Terminology codes. Relative utilization of the two devices was analyzed according to year and region, and the devices were compared in terms of complications and outcomes.
A dramatic change in practice was demonstrated, with the intramedullary nail fixation rate increasing from 3% in 1999 to 67% in 2006. Regional variation was substantial. The highest rate of utilization of intramedullary nail fixation was recorded by candidates from the South, Southeast, and Southwest, who converted to the new technology faster than those in the Northeast, Northwest, and Midwest. Overall, patients managed with plate fixation had slightly less pain and deformity in comparison with those managed with intramedullary nailing, with no significant differences being identified in terms of function or satisfaction. Patients managed with intramedullary nailing had more procedure-related complications, particularly bone fracture.
From 1999 to 2006, a dramatic change in surgeon preference for the fixation device used for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures has occurred among young orthopaedic surgeons. This change has occurred despite a lack of evidence in the literature supporting the change and in the face of the potential for more complications.
20世纪90年代初引入了一种治疗股骨转子间骨折的新型固定方法,该方法使用近端锁定在股骨头内的髓内钉。在美国骨科医师委员会第二部分(口试)考试期间对实践模式的轶事观察表明,与更传统的滑动加压螺钉技术相比,近年来这种方法的使用大幅增加。对第二部分数据库进行了一项研究,以检测股骨转子间骨折护理模式的变化。
在委员会认证过程中,第二部分(口试)考试的考生将一份为期六个月的手术病例清单和患者数据提交到一个安全的数据库中。在七年期间(1999年至2006年),在数据库中搜索所有股骨转子间骨折(国际疾病分类,第九版,代码820.20或820.21)。根据外科医生报告的当前手术操作术语代码,将病例按髓内钉或钢板固定进行分类。根据年份和地区分析了两种器械的相对使用情况,并比较了两种器械的并发症和治疗结果。
实践中出现了显著变化,髓内钉固定率从1999年的3%上升到2006年的67%。地区差异很大。南方、东南部和西南部的考生记录的髓内钉固定使用率最高,他们比东北部、西北部和中西部的考生更快地采用了这项新技术。总体而言,与采用髓内钉固定的患者相比,采用钢板固定的患者疼痛和畸形程度略轻,在功能或满意度方面未发现显著差异。采用髓内钉固定的患者有更多与手术相关的并发症,尤其是骨折。
从1999年到2006年,年轻骨科医生在治疗股骨转子间骨折时对固定器械的偏好发生了显著变化。尽管文献中缺乏支持这种变化的证据,且面临更多并发症的可能性,但这种变化仍然发生了。