Cargando…
Orthogeriatric co-management for proximal femoral fractures. Can two additions make a big difference?
BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral fractures are a major socioeconomic burden and they occur mainly in geriatric patients. High mortality and complication rates are reported. To reduce the mortality and morbidity of these patients, co-management with geriatricians has been recommended. Most previous studi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32527237 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03392-1 |
_version_ | 1783545969784127488 |
---|---|
author | Werner, Maic Krause, Olaf Macke, Christian Herold, Lambert Ranker, Alexander Krettek, Christian Liodakis, Emmanouil |
author_facet | Werner, Maic Krause, Olaf Macke, Christian Herold, Lambert Ranker, Alexander Krettek, Christian Liodakis, Emmanouil |
author_sort | Werner, Maic |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral fractures are a major socioeconomic burden and they occur mainly in geriatric patients. High mortality and complication rates are reported. To reduce the mortality and morbidity of these patients, co-management with geriatricians has been recommended. Most previous studies have focused on relatively comprehensive care models. Models with only a few additions to the usual care have not been extensively evaluated. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all patients aged ≥70 years (mean age: 84.5 ± 7.1 years, 70% women) with an isolated proximal femoral fracture treated surgically in our institution from May 2018 to October 2019. In the first 9 months, patients were treated with the usual care (control group, n = 103). In the second 9 months, patients were treated with our multidisciplinary care model (intervention group, n = 104), which included the usual care, plus: (1) one multidisciplinary ward round per week and (2) one “elective” operation slot per day reserved for proximal femoral fractures. Baseline characteristics and outcome measures of the hospital stay were extracted from electronic health records. A 3-month follow-up was conducted by phone. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). The hospital stay was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (7.8 ± 4.3 vs. 9.1 ± 4.5; p = 0.022). The intervention reduced the waiting time for surgery by more than 10 h (intervention: 25.4 ± 24.5 vs. control: 35.8 ± 34.1 h; p = 0.013). A structured phone interview was not performed in 30.9% of the cases. The model reduced the overall dissatisfaction rate by more than half (12.9% vs. 32.4%; p = 0.008). On the other hand, the groups had similar perioperative complication rates (25% vs. 24.3%; p > 0.9999) and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.9%; p > 0.9999) and they remained similar at the 3-month follow-up (complications: 20.3% vs. 17.6% p = 0.831, mortality: 18.2% vs. 15.0% p = 0.573). CONCLUSION: We found that two additions to the usual proximal femoral fracture regimen could significantly improve the overall satisfaction rate, reduce the length of hospital stay and shorten the waiting time for surgery. In contrast to previous studies, we observed no significant improvements in complication or mortality rates. Further changes in the standard care might be needed for this purpose. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7291750 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72917502020-06-12 Orthogeriatric co-management for proximal femoral fractures. Can two additions make a big difference? Werner, Maic Krause, Olaf Macke, Christian Herold, Lambert Ranker, Alexander Krettek, Christian Liodakis, Emmanouil BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral fractures are a major socioeconomic burden and they occur mainly in geriatric patients. High mortality and complication rates are reported. To reduce the mortality and morbidity of these patients, co-management with geriatricians has been recommended. Most previous studies have focused on relatively comprehensive care models. Models with only a few additions to the usual care have not been extensively evaluated. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all patients aged ≥70 years (mean age: 84.5 ± 7.1 years, 70% women) with an isolated proximal femoral fracture treated surgically in our institution from May 2018 to October 2019. In the first 9 months, patients were treated with the usual care (control group, n = 103). In the second 9 months, patients were treated with our multidisciplinary care model (intervention group, n = 104), which included the usual care, plus: (1) one multidisciplinary ward round per week and (2) one “elective” operation slot per day reserved for proximal femoral fractures. Baseline characteristics and outcome measures of the hospital stay were extracted from electronic health records. A 3-month follow-up was conducted by phone. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). The hospital stay was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (7.8 ± 4.3 vs. 9.1 ± 4.5; p = 0.022). The intervention reduced the waiting time for surgery by more than 10 h (intervention: 25.4 ± 24.5 vs. control: 35.8 ± 34.1 h; p = 0.013). A structured phone interview was not performed in 30.9% of the cases. The model reduced the overall dissatisfaction rate by more than half (12.9% vs. 32.4%; p = 0.008). On the other hand, the groups had similar perioperative complication rates (25% vs. 24.3%; p > 0.9999) and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.9%; p > 0.9999) and they remained similar at the 3-month follow-up (complications: 20.3% vs. 17.6% p = 0.831, mortality: 18.2% vs. 15.0% p = 0.573). CONCLUSION: We found that two additions to the usual proximal femoral fracture regimen could significantly improve the overall satisfaction rate, reduce the length of hospital stay and shorten the waiting time for surgery. In contrast to previous studies, we observed no significant improvements in complication or mortality rates. Further changes in the standard care might be needed for this purpose. BioMed Central 2020-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7291750/ /pubmed/32527237 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03392-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Werner, Maic Krause, Olaf Macke, Christian Herold, Lambert Ranker, Alexander Krettek, Christian Liodakis, Emmanouil Orthogeriatric co-management for proximal femoral fractures. Can two additions make a big difference? |
title | Orthogeriatric co-management for proximal femoral fractures. Can two additions make a big difference? |
title_full | Orthogeriatric co-management for proximal femoral fractures. Can two additions make a big difference? |
title_fullStr | Orthogeriatric co-management for proximal femoral fractures. Can two additions make a big difference? |
title_full_unstemmed | Orthogeriatric co-management for proximal femoral fractures. Can two additions make a big difference? |
title_short | Orthogeriatric co-management for proximal femoral fractures. Can two additions make a big difference? |
title_sort | orthogeriatric co-management for proximal femoral fractures. can two additions make a big difference? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7291750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32527237 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03392-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wernermaic orthogeriatriccomanagementforproximalfemoralfracturescantwoadditionsmakeabigdifference AT krauseolaf orthogeriatriccomanagementforproximalfemoralfracturescantwoadditionsmakeabigdifference AT mackechristian orthogeriatriccomanagementforproximalfemoralfracturescantwoadditionsmakeabigdifference AT heroldlambert orthogeriatriccomanagementforproximalfemoralfracturescantwoadditionsmakeabigdifference AT rankeralexander orthogeriatriccomanagementforproximalfemoralfracturescantwoadditionsmakeabigdifference AT krettekchristian orthogeriatriccomanagementforproximalfemoralfracturescantwoadditionsmakeabigdifference AT liodakisemmanouil orthogeriatriccomanagementforproximalfemoralfracturescantwoadditionsmakeabigdifference |