Department of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 4059, Australia.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022 Jun;48(3):1851-1859. doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01801-1. Epub 2021 Oct 5.
To determine whether internal fixation (IF) or hip arthroplasty (HA) is associated with superior outcomes in geriatric nondisplaced femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients.
Data from the Registry for Geriatric Trauma of the German Trauma Society (ATR-DGU) were analyzed (IF Group 449 and HA Group 1278 patients). In-hospital care and a 120-day postoperative follow-up were conducted. Primary outcomes, including mobility, residential status, reoperation rate, and a generic health status measure (EQ-5D score), and the secondary outcome of mortality were compared between groups. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess independent treatment group associations (odds ratios, ORs) with the primary and secondary end points.
Patients in the HA group were older (83 vs. 81 years, p < 0.001) and scored higher on the Identification of Seniors at Risk screening (3 vs. 2, p < 0.001). We observed no differences in residential status, reoperation rate, EQ-5D score, or mortality between groups. After adjusting for key covariates, including prefracture ambulatory capacity, the mobility of patients in the HA group was more frequently impaired at the 120-day follow-up (OR 2.28, 95% confidence interval = 1.11-4.74).
Treatment with HA compared to treatment with IF led to a more than twofold increase in the adjusted odds of impaired ambulation at the short-term follow-up, while no significant associations with residential status, reoperation rate, EQ-5D index score, or mortality were observed. Thus, IF for geriatric nondisplaced FNFs was associated with superior mobility 120 days after surgery. However, before definitive treatment recommendations can be made, prospective, randomized, long-term studies must be performed to confirm our findings.
确定内固定(IF)或髋关节置换术(HA)治疗老年无移位股骨颈骨折(FNF)患者的效果是否更好。
对德国创伤学会老年创伤登记处(ATR-DGU)的数据进行了分析(IF 组 449 例,HA 组 1278 例)。进行了住院治疗和 120 天术后随访。比较了两组之间的主要结局,包括活动能力、居住状态、再次手术率和一般健康状况测量(EQ-5D 评分)以及次要结局死亡率。进行多变量分析以评估主要和次要结局的独立治疗组关联(比值比,OR)。
HA 组患者年龄更大(83 岁 vs. 81 岁,p<0.001),识别老年人风险筛选评分更高(3 分 vs. 2 分,p<0.001)。两组之间在居住状态、再次手术率、EQ-5D 评分或死亡率方面没有差异。在调整了关键协变量(包括骨折前步行能力)后,HA 组患者在 120 天随访时活动能力受损的可能性更高(OR 2.28,95%置信区间 1.11-4.74)。
与 IF 治疗相比,HA 治疗导致调整后短期随访时活动能力受损的可能性增加了两倍以上,而在居住状态、再次手术率、EQ-5D 指数评分或死亡率方面没有显著关联。因此,IF 治疗老年无移位股骨颈骨折患者在术后 120 天具有更好的活动能力。然而,在能够做出明确的治疗建议之前,必须进行前瞻性、随机、长期研究来证实我们的发现。