Others titles
- Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Approach in the Management of Hip Fractures
- AAOS Guidelines on Hip Fracture Management
- Better Approach in the Management of Hip Fractures
- Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in Elderly Hemiarthroplasty Hip Fractures
- Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in Elderly Recovery From Hip Fractures
- Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in Elderly Posterior Hip Fractures
- Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in Elderly Hip Resurfacing Fractures
Keywords
- Hip Fractures
- Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Surgical Approach
- Posterior Hip Surgical Approach
- Direct Lateral Hip Surgical Approach
- Hip Fractures in the Elderly
- Hemiarthroplasty Hip
- Recovery From Hip
- Posterior Hip
- Hip Resurfacing
Posterior VS Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in Elderly Hip Fractures
This dataset shows moderate evidence that supports higher dislocation rates with a posterior approach in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures with hip arthroplasty.
Get The Data
- ResearchNon-Commercial, Share-Alike, Attribution Free Forever
- CommercialCommercial Use, Remix & Adapt, White Label Log in to download
Description
Alternative nomenclature for the posterior approach to the hip identified in the literature includes the Southern, the posterior, the Moore or the dorsal approach. Similarly, the direct lateral approach can also be called the anterolateral, the transgluteal or more commonly the Modified Hardinge approach. While neither of the included studies specifically addressed any functional outcomes, they both demonstrated statistically significant differences in dislocation rates, favoring the Modified Hardinge approach.
There is no inherent harm in either approach or any associated complications other than the primary outcome of dislocation of the prosthesis postoperatively. This information should be considered in the context of both patient and surgeon specific factors when deciding on a surgical approach.
About this Dataset
Data Info
Date Created | 2014-09-05 |
---|---|
Last Modified | 2014-09-05 |
Version | 2014-09-05 |
Update Frequency |
Annual |
Temporal Coverage |
2010-2012 |
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, Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Surgical Approach, Posterior Hip Surgical Approach, Direct Lateral Hip Surgical Approach, Hip Fractures in the Elderly, Hemiarthroplasty Hip, Recovery From Hip, Posterior Hip, Hip Resurfacing |
Other Titles | Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Approach in the Management of Hip Fractures, AAOS Guidelines on Hip Fracture Management, Better Approach in the Management of Hip Fractures, Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in Elderly Hemiarthroplasty Hip Fractures, Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in Elderly Recovery From Hip Fractures, Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in Elderly Posterior Hip Fractures, Posterior Versus Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in Elderly Hip Resurfacing Fractures |
Data Fields
Name | Description | Type | Constraints |
---|---|---|---|
Study | Description of the previous studies used in this research. | string | required : 1 |
Outcome_Function | Description of the reported outcomes from the participants who underwent Posterior or Direct Lateral Surgical Approach. | string | required : 1 |
Duration | Description of the duration of the outcome from a Posterior or Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in the management of Hip Fractures. | string | required : 1 |
Group_1 | Description of the type of Posterior or Direct Lateral Surgical Approach used in the first group. | string | required : 1 |
Group_2 | Description of the type of Posterior or Direct Lateral Surgical Approach used in the second group. | string | required : 1 |
Population_Size | Shows the number of participants or population size in a certain group that received either a Posterior or Direct Lateral Surgical Approach in the management of Hip Fracture. | integer | level : Ratiorequired : 1 |
Statistic | Description of the measurable characteristic of a sample population. | string | required : 1 |
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 Function | Duration | Group 1 | Group 2 | Population Size | Statistic | Result | Probability | Study P Value | Favors |
Bieber et al 2012 | Dislocation | Either inpatient or causing re-admission | Dorsal approach | Transgluteal approach | 704 | Risk ratio | 8.47 | 0.04 | No | Favors transgluteal approach |
Bieber et al 2012 | Infection | Unclear | Dorsal approach | Transgluteal approach | 704 | Risk ratio | 0.76 | 0.57 | No | NS |
Bieber et al 2012 | Hematoma | Unclear | Dorsal approach | Transgluteal approach | 704 | Risk ratio | 0.22 | 0.0 | No | Favors transgluteal approach |
Bieber et al 2012 | Seroma | Unclear | Dorsal approach | Transgluteal approach | 704 | Risk ratio | 2.01 | 0.37 | No | NS |
Bieber et al 2012 | Perioperative fracture | Intraoperatively or early postoperatively | Dorsal approach | Transgluteal approach | 704 | Risk ratio | 1.34 | 0.8 | No | NS |
Skoldenberg et al 2010 | Dislocation | Varied | Posterolateral | Anterolateral | 372 | Risk ratio | 7.97 | 0.01 | No | Favors anterolateral |
Skoldenberg et al 2010 | Deep infection leading to reoperation | Varied | Posterolateral | Anterolateral | 372 | Risk ratio | 2.34 | 0.3 | No | NS |
Skoldenberg et al 2010 | Periprosthetic fracture leading to reoperation | Varied | Posterolateral | Anterolateral | 372 | Risk ratio | 0.7 | 0.64 | No | NS |
Skoldenberg et al 2010 | Early aeseptic loosening leading to reoperation | Varied | Posterolateral | Anterolateral | 372 | % risk difference | 0.52 | 0.28 | No | NS |