Others titles
- Advanced Imaging in the Management of Hip Fractures
- Cephalomedullary Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw in the Management of Hip Fractures
- Cephalomedullary Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Complications in the Management of Hip Fracture
- AAOS Guidelines on Hip Fracture Management
- Advanced Imaging Function in the Management of Hip Fractures in the Elderly
- Cephallomedullary Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Complications in Elderly Hip Fracture
- Cephallomedullary Gamma Nail Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Complications in Elderly Hip Fractures
- Cephallomedullary IM Nailing Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Complications in Elderly Hip Fractures
Keywords
- Hip Fractures
- Advanced Imaging in Hip Fractures
- Cephalomedullary Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw
- Management of Hip Fractures
- Hip Fractures in the Elderly
- Cephalomedullary device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Complications
- Hip Fracture
- Gamma Nail Device
- IM Nailing
Cephallomedullary Device VS Sliding Hip Screw Fracture Complications

This datset shows moderate evidence that supports using a cephalomedullary device for the treatment of patients with unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures.
Get The Data
- Research
Non-Commercial,
Share-Alike,
Attribution Free Forever
- Commercial
Commercial Use,
Remix & Adapt,
White Label Log in to download
Description
Five moderate and one with high strength studies evaluated the use of cephalomedullary devices in unstable intertrochanteric fractures with a separate lesser trochanteric fragment but no subtrochanteric involvement in these studies. Although many studies have been done, the variability of fracture classification systems and implants used makes interpretation of the literature challenging.
Evaluation of these studies shows moderate strength evidence supporting the treatment benefit of cephalomedullary devices for unstable intertrochanteric fractures. High level trials comparing modern cephalomedullary devices with sliding hip screws in a large cohort of patients with intertrochanteric fractures should specifically assess functional outcomes, radiographic outcomes, complications, and cost in future studies.
About this Dataset
Data Info
Date Created | 2014-09-05 |
---|---|
Last Modified | 2014-09-05 |
Version | 2014-09-05 |
Update Frequency |
Never |
Temporal Coverage |
1992-2010 |
Spatial Coverage |
United States |
Source | John Snow Labs; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS); |
Source License URL | |
Source License Requirements |
N/A |
Source Citation |
N/A |
Keywords | Hip Fractures, Advanced Imaging in Hip Fractures, Cephalomedullary Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw, Management of Hip Fractures, Hip Fractures in the Elderly, Cephalomedullary device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Complications, Hip Fracture, Gamma Nail Device, IM Nailing |
Other Titles | Advanced Imaging in the Management of Hip Fractures, Cephalomedullary Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw in the Management of Hip Fractures, Cephalomedullary Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Complications in the Management of Hip Fracture, AAOS Guidelines on Hip Fracture Management, Advanced Imaging Function in the Management of Hip Fractures in the Elderly, Cephallomedullary Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Complications in Elderly Hip Fracture, Cephallomedullary Gamma Nail Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Complications in Elderly Hip Fractures, Cephallomedullary IM Nailing Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Complications in Elderly Hip Fractures |
Data Fields
Name | Description | Type | Constraints |
---|---|---|---|
Study | Description of the previous studies used in this research. | string | required : 1 |
Outcome | Description of the reported outcomes from the participants who used either a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw for the management of hip fracture. | string | required : 1 |
Notes | Description of the specific outcome when a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw was used. | string | - |
Duration_Immediate | Description of the duration of the immediate outcome after using either a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw for the management of hip fracture. | string | - |
Duration_Hours | Description of the duration (in hours) of the outcome after using either a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw for the management of hip fracture. | integer | level : Ratio |
Duration_Days | Description of the duration (in days) of the outcome after using either a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw for the management of hip fracture. | integer | level : Ratio |
Duration_Months | Description of the duration (in months) of the outcome after using either a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw for the management of hip fracture. | integer | level : Ratio |
Duration_Years | Description of the duration (in years) of the outcome after using either a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw for the management of hip fracture. | integer | level : Ratio |
Group_1 | Description of the specific device or screw used to manage hip fracture in the first group. | string | required : 1 |
Group_2 | Description of the specific device or screw used to manage hip fracture in the second group. | string | required : 1 |
Population_Size | Shows the number of participants or population size in a certain group that used either a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw for the management of hip fracture. | integer | level : Ratiorequired : 1 |
Statistic | Description of the measurable characteristic of a sample population. | string | - |
Result | Results of the study. | number | level : Ratio |
Probability | Effectiveness of the result based on the hypothesis of the study. | number | level : Ratio |
Study_P_Value | Statistical significance of the results of the study. | string | - |
Favors | Description of which method is more effective. | string | required : 1 |
Data Preview
Study | Outcome | Notes | Duration Immediate | Duration Hours | Duration Days | Duration Months | Duration Years | Group 1 | Group 2 | Population Size | Statistic | Result | Probability | Study P Value | Favors |
Sadowski et al 2002 | Blood transfused | units | Intra-operative | Proximal Femoral Nail | Dynamic Hip Screw | 39 | Mean difference | -1.5 | 0.01 | PFN | |||||
Sadowski et al 2002 | No. of patients receiving blood | Intra-operative | Proximal Femoral Nail | Dynamic Hip Screw | 39 | Risk ratio | 0.58 | 0.01 | PFN | ||||||
Sadowski et al 2002 | Urinary infection | Intra-operative | Proximal Femoral Nail | Dynamic Hip Screw | 39 | Risk ratio | 2.38 | 0.26 | NS | ||||||
Sadowski et al 2002 | Pneumonia | Intra-operative | Proximal Femoral Nail | Dynamic Hip Screw | 39 | Risk ratio | 0.63 | 0.59 | NS | ||||||
Sadowski et al 2002 | Cardiac failure or infarction | Post-op | Proximal Femoral Nail | Dynamic Hip Screw | 39 | Risk ratio | 0.95 | 0.97 | NS | ||||||
Sadowski et al 2002 | Decibotis | Post-op | Proximal Femoral Nail | Dynamic Hip Screw | 39 | percent risk difference | -5.26 | 0.26 | NS | ||||||
Sadowski et al 2002 | Cerebrovascular accident | Post-op | Proximal Femoral Nail | Dynamic Hip Screw | 39 | percent risk difference | 5.0 | 0.28 | NS | ||||||
Sadowski et al 2002 | Wound complications | Post-op | Proximal Femoral Nail | Dynamic Hip Screw | 39 | Risk ratio | 1.43 | 0.68 | NS | ||||||
Sadowski et al 2002 | Implant fracture | 12.0 | Proximal Femoral Nail | Dynamic Hip Screw | 35 | percent risk difference | -35.29 | PFN | |||||||
Sadowski et al 2002 | Infection | 12.0 | Proximal Femoral Nail | Dynamic Hip Screw | 35 | percent risk difference | -5.88 | 0.26 | NS |