Bohl Daniel D, Basques Bryce A, Golinvaux Nicholas S, Miller Christopher P, Baumgaertner Michael R, Grauer Jonathan N
Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, 800 Howard Avenue, New Haven, CT 06510. E-mail address for J.N. Grauer:
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Nov 19;96(22):1871-7. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00041.
For more than thirty-five years, the sliding hip screw, an extramedullary implant, has been the standard treatment for the stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures. Over the last decade, intramedullary implants have replaced extramedullary implants as the most commonly used type of implant in the United States for the treatment of this condition, without strong evidence of superior outcomes.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study with use of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. Patients seventy years of age or older who had sustained an intertrochanteric fracture treated with extramedullary or intramedullary implant during 2009 to 2012 were identified. General surgical outcomes were compared between implant types, with adjustment for demographic data and comorbidities.
A total of 4432 patients were identified; 1612 (36.4%) were treated with an extramedullary implant, and 2820 (63.6%) with an intramedullary implant. The rates of the composite outcomes "serious adverse events" and "any adverse events" did not differ by implant type. The mean postoperative length of stay was shorter for patients treated with an intramedullary implant compared with those treated with an extramedullary implant (5.4 compared with 6.5 days; p < 0.001). Operation time, operating room time, and the rate of hospital readmission did not differ by implant type.
These results reinforce the results of previous randomized trials, demonstrating little difference in rates of general surgical adverse events between implant types. The present study presents an important departure from previous trials in its finding that patients treated with intramedullary implants have, on average, a shorter postoperative length of stay (by 1.1 days). The finding may negate the perceived excess cost associated with intramedullary treatment. Limitations regarding the ACS NSQIP database include a lack of detail regarding fracture subtype, outcomes beyond thirty days, and orthopaedic-specific outcomes.
三十五年来,髓外植入物滑动髋螺钉一直是治疗转子间骨折稳定的标准方法。在过去十年中,髓内植入物已取代髓外植入物,成为美国治疗这种疾病最常用的植入物类型,但没有强有力的证据表明其疗效更优。
我们使用美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划(ACS NSQIP)数据库进行了一项回顾性队列研究。确定了2009年至2012年期间接受髓外或髓内植入物治疗转子间骨折的70岁及以上患者。比较了植入物类型之间的一般手术结果,并对人口统计学数据和合并症进行了调整。
共确定了4432例患者;1612例(36.4%)接受了髓外植入物治疗,2820例(63.6%)接受了髓内植入物治疗。“严重不良事件”和“任何不良事件”的综合结果发生率在植入物类型之间没有差异。与接受髓外植入物治疗的患者相比,接受髓内植入物治疗的患者术后平均住院时间更短(分别为5.4天和6.5天;p<0.001)。手术时间、手术室时间和医院再入院率在植入物类型之间没有差异。
这些结果强化了先前随机试验的结果,表明植入物类型之间一般手术不良事件发生率差异不大。本研究与先前试验的一个重要不同之处在于,发现接受髓内植入物治疗的患者术后平均住院时间较短(短1.1天)。这一发现可能会消除人们认为髓内治疗成本过高的看法。ACS NSQIP数据库的局限性包括缺乏关于骨折亚型、30天以上结果以及骨科特定结果的详细信息。