Cephallomedullary Device VS Sliding Hip Screw Fracture Functions

$79 / year

This dataset shows moderate evidence that supports using a cephalomedullary device for the treatment of patients with unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures.

Complexity

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.
The current trend for increasing use of cephalomedullary devices in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures (Yli-Kyyny, Injury 2012; 2008, Jeffery Anglen, JBJS) in the absence of strong supporting evidence as well as the recent concerns regarding increased complication rates with conversion of failed cephalomedullary implants to total hip arthroplasty (Pui et al JOA 2013) warrants caution and further investigation.

Date Created

2014-09-05

Last Modified

2014-09-05

Version

2014-09-05

Update Frequency

Never

Temporal Coverage

1998-2005

Spatial Coverage

United States

Source

John Snow Labs => American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)

Source License URL

John Snow Labs Standard License

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, 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, AAOS Guidelines on Hip Fracture Management, Advanced Imaging Function in the Management of Hip Fractures in the Elderly, Cephallomedullary Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Functions in Elderly Hip Fracture, Cephallomedullary Gamma Nail Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Functions in Elderly Hip Fractures, Cephallomedullary IM Nailing Device Versus Sliding Hip Screw Functions in Elderly Hip Fractures

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-
DurationDescription of the duration of the outcome after using either a Cephalomedullary Device or a Sliding Hip Screw for the management of hip fracture.stringrequired : 1
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 : 1 level : 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
StudyOutcomeNotesDurationGroup_1Group_2Population_SizeStatisticResultProbabilityStudy_P_ValueFavors
Miedel et al 2005Health related quality of life12 monthsGamma nailMedoff sliding plate217>.05NS
Sadowski et al 2002Home dischargepost-opProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Risk ratio0.480.35NS
Sadowski et al 2002Home residence12 monthsProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw35Risk ratio1.70.23NS
Sadowski et al 2002Nursing home residence12 monthsProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw35Risk ratio1.70.23NS
Sadowski et al 2002Jensen social function score12 monthsProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw28Mean difference0.10.82NS
Sadowski et al 2002Parker and palmer function score12 monthsProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw28Mean difference-10.4NS
Sadowski et al 2002Nursing home/rehabilitation hospital dischargepost-opProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Risk ratio1.010.94NS
Sadowski et al 2002Nursing home/rehabilitation hospital dischargepost-opProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Risk ratio1.010.94NS
Sadowski et al 2002Nursing home/rehabilitation hospital dischargepost-opProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Risk ratio1.010.94NS
Sadowski et al 2002Nursing home/rehabilitation hospital dischargepost-opProximal Femoral NailDynamic Hip Screw39Risk ratio1.010.94NS