SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Are periprosthetic hip fractures more severe than native hip fractures? A systematic review of outcomes and resource utilization.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a paucity of data comparing periprosthetic hip fracture (PPHFx) outcomes and resource utilization to native fractures. Many surgeons consider periprosthetic hip fractures to be more severe injuries than native fractures. The aim of this systematic review is to characterize the outcomes of PPHFx and assess their severity relative to native hip fractures (NHFx).
methodsA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis systematic review was conducted using Medline, Biosis, and Cinahl. Primary outcomes were time to surgery, length of stay (LOS), cost of management, disposition, complication rates, readmission rates, and mortality.
results14 articles (13,489 patients) from 2010 to 2018 were included in the study. Study quality was generally low. Patient follow-up ranged from 1 month to 3.2 years. LOS ranged from 5.2 to 38 days. US cost of management was best estimated at $53,669 ± 19,817. Discharge to skilled nursing facilities ranged from 64.5 to 74.5%. Time to surgery ranged from 1.9 to 5.7 days. Readmission rates ranged from 12 to 32%. Per Clavien-Dindo classification, 33.9% suffered minor complications; 14.3% suffered major complications. 1 month and 1 year mortality ranged from 2.9% to 10% and 9.7% to 45%, respectively.
conclusionTime to surgery and LOS were longer for PPHFx relative to NHFx. Complications' rates were higher for PPHFx compared to NHFx. There is no evidence for differences in LOS, cost, discharge, readmission rates, or mortality between PPHFx and NHFx. These results may serve as a baseline in future evaluation of PPHFx management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38156997What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.