ArticleCureus2024
Management of Failed Fixation of Extracapsular Hip Fractures.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Extracapsular hip fractures are routinely treated with fixation, and the majority heal without complication. The fixation fails in a minority of cases, typically either by 'cutting out' of the superior femoral head or through breakage of the metalwork following non-union. In such cases, if operative treatment is thought appropriate, there are two major treatment options: revision fixation of the fracture or joint replacement surgery. Methods Medline on OvidSP was searched using relevant medical-specific subject headings (MeSH) and keywords. The inclusion criteria were: study regarding management of failed extracapsular hip fracture fixation (not osteoarthritis alone, following such surgery), mean age >60 years, comparative study of joint replacement vs. revision fixation. The search returned 1053 results, of which two were relevant. Both studies were considered poor quality and neither study was randomised. Instead, outcomes from the current Hospital Trust were used instead through a prospectively generated trauma database. Results From the trauma database, 37 patients (mean age 81), of whom 21 had received cephalomedullary nails and the remainder dynamic hip screw (DHS), were identified. Fourteen patients underwent revision fixation (seven cephalomedullary nail; seven blade plate), while 23 underwent hip replacement (17 total hip replacement; six hemiarthroplasty). Although the difference did not reach statistical significance according to the log-rank test (p = 0.233), there is a trend towards lower re-operation rate following joint replacement, with the difference becoming apparent after over one year's follow-up. Conclusion Despite the quality of evidence, the default operation for failed extracapsular hip fracture fixation should be joint replacement, based on a likely lower re-operation rate and permitting immediate full-weight-bearing. In selected instances, particularly younger patients and those who can partially-weight-bear, revision fixation would still be considered. As the number of hip fractures continues to increase both within the UK and worldwide, we can expect to see more patients with previous failed fixations, and more evidence regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different treatment strategies is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.