• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

移位型股骨颈骨折内固定与半髋关节置换术的总成本比较。

Comparison of total costs between internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures.

作者信息

Liu Haonan, He Liang, Zhang Guilin, Gong Xiaofeng, Li Ning

机构信息

Medical Center, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100083, China.

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing 100035, China.

出版信息

J Orthop Sci. 2017 Jan;22(1):75-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jos.2016.08.015. Epub 2016 Sep 29.

DOI:10.1016/j.jos.2016.08.015
PMID:27693203
Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is very little information on the costs of different surgeries for displaced femoral neck fractures. This study aimed to compare the costs between internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fracture.

METHOD

A total of 142 patients aged 65 years or older who had been randomized into internal fixation group (n = 70) or HA group (n = 72) were followed for 2 years. Cost data was collected through hospitalization information, cost diary and telephone interview. Sensitivity analysis was performed for missing diaries. The total costs were collected and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

All diaries were completed by 69.7% of patients. The mean costs of primary treatment were significantly lower for internal fixation (CNY 21,631) compared with HA (CNY 51,641) (p < 0.001). The mean post-discharge costs were similar for both procedures: CNY 37,377 for internal fixation and CNY 34,981 for HA (p = 0.640). The mean total costs for internal fixation were CNY 59,008, which was significantly lower than the mean total costs of CNY 86,622 for HA (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Although the post-discharge costs of internal fixation were slightly higher, the total costs were still lower than for HA due to great variance in costs of primary treatment. In China, internal fixation may be less costly than HA for displaced femoral neck fracture treatment.

摘要

背景

关于移位型股骨颈骨折不同手术的费用信息非常少。本研究旨在比较内固定与半髋关节置换术(HA)治疗移位型股骨颈骨折的费用。

方法

将142例65岁及以上的患者随机分为内固定组(n = 70)或HA组(n = 72),随访2年。通过住院信息、费用日记和电话访谈收集费用数据。对缺失的日记进行敏感性分析。收集两组的总费用并进行比较。

结果

69.7%的患者完成了所有日记。内固定的初始治疗平均费用(21,631元人民币)显著低于HA(51,641元人民币)(p < 0.001)。两种手术出院后的平均费用相似:内固定为37,377元人民币,HA为34,981元人民币(p = 0.640)。内固定的平均总费用为59,008元人民币,显著低于HA的平均总费用86,622元人民币(p = 0.002)。

结论

尽管内固定出院后的费用略高,但由于初始治疗费用差异很大,其总费用仍低于HA。在中国,内固定治疗移位型股骨颈骨折的费用可能低于HA。

相似文献

1
Comparison of total costs between internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures.移位型股骨颈骨折内固定与半髋关节置换术的总成本比较。
J Orthop Sci. 2017 Jan;22(1):75-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jos.2016.08.015. Epub 2016 Sep 29.
2
Internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: A cost-effectiveness analysis.老年移位股骨颈骨折内固定与半髋关节置换术的成本效果分析。
Injury. 2020 Jun;51(6):1346-1351. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.03.002. Epub 2020 Mar 2.
3
Costs of internal fixation and arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized study of 68 patients.移位型股骨颈骨折的内固定与关节置换术费用:68例患者的随机研究
Acta Orthop Scand. 2003 Jun;74(3):293-8. doi: 10.1080/00016470310014210.
4
Revision rates and cumulative financial burden in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty compared to cannulated screws after femoral neck fractures.与空心螺钉治疗相比,半髋关节置换术治疗股骨颈骨折患者的翻修率及累积经济负担。
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Dec;134(12):1667-71. doi: 10.1007/s00402-014-2096-3. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
5
ORIF or Arthroplasty for Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures in Patients Younger Than 65 Years Old: An Economic Decision Analysis.65岁以下患者移位型股骨颈骨折的切开复位内固定术或关节置换术:一项经济决策分析
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Jan 4;99(1):65-75. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00406.
6
Total hip arthroplasty: optimal treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.全髋关节置换术:老年患者移位型股骨颈骨折的最佳治疗方法。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec(429):43-8.
7
[Internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fracture: a cost-utility analysis].[内固定与半髋关节置换术治疗移位型股骨颈骨折的成本-效用分析]
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2017 Jun 6;97(21):1650-1654. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2017.21.012.
8
Hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation with percutaneous cannulated screws as treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: cost-utility analysis performed alongside a randomized, controlled trial.人工髋关节置换术与经皮空心螺钉内固定治疗老年移位型股骨颈骨折的比较:随机对照试验的成本-效用分析。
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Jun;23(6):1711-9. doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1772-1. Epub 2011 Oct 14.
9
Unstable intertrochanteric versus displaced femoral neck fractures treated with cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients; a comparison of 80 matched patients.老年患者不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折与移位型股骨颈骨折行非骨水泥双极半髋关节置换术的比较:80例匹配患者的对比研究
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 Oct;102(6):695-9. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.04.007. Epub 2016 May 24.
10
The choice of screw internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a meta-analysis.老年股骨颈骨折内固定螺钉与半髋关节置换术的选择:一项荟萃分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Sep 21;15(1):433. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01958-2.

引用本文的文献

1
Surgical interventions for treating intracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis.老年人囊内型髋部骨折的手术治疗:网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 14;2(2):CD013404. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013404.pub2.
2
The choice of screw internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a meta-analysis.老年股骨颈骨折内固定螺钉与半髋关节置换术的选择:一项荟萃分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Sep 21;15(1):433. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01958-2.
3
Cost-effectiveness analysis of cinacalcet for haemodialysis patients with moderate-to-severe secondary hyperparathyroidism in China: evaluation based on the EVOLVE trial.
中国血液透析患者中重度继发性甲状旁腺功能亢进使用西那卡塞的成本效益分析:基于EVOLVE试验的评估
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 4;10(8):e034123. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034123.