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.

Log in to download
Complexity

Get The Data

For getting access to data download links please read and accept the end-user license agreement.
Your Data License
  • 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
StudyDescription of the previous studies used in this research.stringrequired : 1
OutcomeDescription of the reported outcomes from the participants who used either a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw for the management of hip fracture.stringrequired : 1
NotesDescription of the specific outcome when a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw was used.string-
Duration_ImmediateDescription 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_HoursDescription 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.integerlevel : Ratio
Duration_DaysDescription 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.integerlevel : Ratio
Duration_MonthsDescription 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.integerlevel : Ratio
Duration_YearsDescription 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.integerlevel : Ratio
Group_1Description of the specific device or screw used to manage hip fracture in the first group.stringrequired : 1
Group_2Description of the specific device or screw used to manage hip fracture in the second group.stringrequired : 1
Population_SizeShows 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.integerrequired : 1level : Ratio
StatisticDescription of the measurable characteristic of a sample population.string-
ResultResults of the study.numberlevel : Ratio
ProbabilityEffectiveness of the result based on the hypothesis of the study.numberlevel : Ratio
Study_P_ValueStatistical significance of the results of the study.string-
FavorsDescription of which method is more effective.stringrequired : 1

Data Preview

StudyOutcomeNotesDuration ImmediateDuration HoursDuration DaysDuration MonthsDuration YearsGroup 1Group 2Population SizeStatisticResultProbabilityStudy P ValueFavors
Sadowski et al 2002Blood transfusedunitsIntra-operativeProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Mean difference-1.50.01PFN
Sadowski et al 2002No. of patients receiving bloodIntra-operativeProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Risk ratio0.580.01PFN
Sadowski et al 2002Urinary infectionIntra-operativeProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Risk ratio2.380.26NS
Sadowski et al 2002PneumoniaIntra-operativeProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Risk ratio0.630.59NS
Sadowski et al 2002Cardiac failure or infarctionPost-opProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Risk ratio0.950.97NS
Sadowski et al 2002DecibotisPost-opProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39percent risk difference-5.260.26NS
Sadowski et al 2002Cerebrovascular accidentPost-opProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39percent risk difference5.00.28NS
Sadowski et al 2002Wound complicationsPost-opProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Risk ratio1.430.68NS
Sadowski et al 2002Implant fracture12.0Proximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw35percent risk difference-35.29PFN
Sadowski et al 2002Infection12.0Proximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw35percent risk difference-5.880.26NS