Dataset Information

Immediate versus delayed surgery for hip fractures in the elderly patients: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hip fractures are a major public health problem in elderly populations and are accompanied by high-mortality rates. Whether timing of surgery has an impact on morbidity and mortality has been discussed controversially, numerous studies suggest that the delay of surgery can significantly increase the risk of morbidity and mortality; others report that achieving a stable medical condition is more important than early surgery. The goal of our systematic review is to assess the impact of timing of surgery on health outcomes in patients aged 60 years or older with acute hip fracture. In addition, we will investigate differences in beneficial or harmful effects of timing of surgery in subgroups of patients based on demographic characteristics, physical status, and the use of anticoagulant medications.

Methods

We will systematically search MEDLINE via Ovid, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and clinical trial registries (from 1997 to 2017). In addition, we will search reference lists of pertinent reviews, archives of annual meetings of orthopaedic societies, and contact experts. We will include randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies assessing the impact of timing of surgery after hip fracture in patients 60 years or older, published in English or German. Our outcomes of interest include health outcomes such as mortality, perioperative complications, functional capacity, and quality of life. We plan to perform meta-analyses if we have at least three sufficiently similar studies. If data are sufficient, we will conduct subgroup-analyses testing for differences between age groups, sex, patients' physical status as assessed with ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) scores, and the use of anticoagulation.

Discussion

Since this is the first systematic review on this topic since 2010, our findings will help to inform clinical practice guidelines concerning timing of surgery in hip fractures. Furthermore, our findings could contribute to define an optimal time period for surgery for different groups of patients with acute hip fracture.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017058216.

SUBMITTER: Klestil T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5558743 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Immediate versus delayed surgery for hip fractures in the elderly patients: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Klestil Thomas T Röder Christoph C Stotter Christoph C Winkler Birgit B Nehrer Stefan S Lutz Martin M Klerings Irma I Wagner Gernot G Gartlehner Gerald G Nussbaumer-Streit Barbara B

Systematic reviews 20170815 1

<h4>Background</h4>Hip fractures are a major public health problem in elderly populations and are accompanied by high-mortality rates. Whether timing of surgery has an impact on morbidity and mortality has been discussed controversially, numerous studies suggest that the delay of surgery can significantly increase the risk of morbidity and mortality; others report that achieving a stable medical condition is more important than early surgery. The goal of our systematic review is to assess the im ...[more]

PMID: 28810901

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIncreasing numbers of patients with hip fractures also have advanced comorbidities. A majority are treated surgically. However, a significantly increasing percentage of medically unfit patients with unacceptably high risk of perioperative death are treated nonoperatively. Important questions about patients' prefracture quality of life (QOL) and future perspectives should be asked before considering different treatment options to assess what kind of treatment is advisable in frail elderly high-risk patients with a hip fracture.ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to provide an overview of differences in mortality, health-related QOL [(HR)QOL], functional outcome, and costs between nonoperative management (NOM) and operative management (OM) of hip fractures in patients above 65 years.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in EMBASE, OvidSP, PubMed, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science for observational studies and trials. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing NOM with OM in hip fracture patients were selected. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed according to the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) or Furlan checklist.ResultsSeven observational studies were included with a total of 1189 patients, of whom 242 (20.3%) were treated conservatively. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate (mean: 14.7, standard deviation [SD]: 1.5). The 30-day and 1-year mortalities were higher in the nonoperative group (odds ratio [OR]: 3.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-10.96; OR: 3.84, 95% CI: 1.57-9.41). None of the included studies compared QOL, functional outcome, or health-care costs between the 2 groups.ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that only a few studies with small number of patients comparing NOM with OM were published. A significantly higher 30-day and 1-year mortality was revealed in nonoperatively treated hip fracture patients. No data were found examining (HR)QOL and costs. Further work is needed to enable shared decision-making and to initiate NOM in frail elderly patients with advanced comorbidity and limited life expectancy.

Project description:BackgroundImmediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS), the cataract surgery that is performed in both eyes simultaneously, is gaining popularity worldwide compared to the traditional treatment paradigm: delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS), the surgery that is performed in each eye on a different day as a completely separate operation. ISBCS provides advantages to patients and patients' families in the form of fewer hospital visits. Additionally, patients enjoy rapid rehabilitation, lack of anisometropia - potentially reducing accidents and falls, and avoid suboptimal visual function in daily life. The hospital may benefit due to lower cost.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate ISBCS and DSBCS.Data sourcesDatabases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), ISI Web of Science (Thomson-Reuters) and the Cochrane Library were searched.ParticipantsNot applicable.MethodsLiterature was systematically reviewed using EPPI-Reviewer 4 gateway. Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA v. 13.0. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were computed based on heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was done by instrument used to calculate utility score.ResultsIn total, 9,133 records were retrieved from multiple databases and an additional 128 records were identified through grey literature search. Eleven articles with 3,657 subjects were included for analysis. Our meta-analysis results indicated significant improvement in post-operative utility score using TTO, EQ5D, HUI3, VF-7, and VF-14 and a non-significant improvement using Catquest questionnaire for both surgeries. For ISBCS versus DSBCS, utility-specific fixed-effect model provided an overall SMD of the utility score using the TTO method as 0.12 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.40), EQ5D as 0.14 (95% CI: -0.14, 0.41), HUI3 as 0.12 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.40), VF-7 as -0.02 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.10), and Catquest Questionnaire as 1.45 (95% CI: -0.88, 2.01). The results for utility score, which were measured using various instruments, indicated non-significant improvement in the utility due to DSBCS compared to ISBCS. However, a significant improvement in post-operative utility score was seen using Catquest questionnaire for ISBCS compared to DSBCS. The included studies using VF-14 instrument were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 97.1%). Results provided SMD of -0.25 (95% CI:-1.06, 0.57) using VF-14 indicating non-significant improvement in the utility due to DSBCS compared to ISBCS surgery. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved after both surgeries (overall SMD of BCVA due to ISBCS was -1.79 (95% CI: -2.45, -1.14) and due to DSBCS was -1.53 (95% CI: -2.25, -0.81)). A non-significant improvement was seen in BCVA due to ISBCS when compared to DSBCS (SMD = -0.18; 95% CI: -0.37, 0.01).ConclusionBoth surgeries, ISBCS and DSBCS significantly improve patients' quality of life and visual acuity. Further, ISBCS may deliver certain additional benefits at the individual and societal levels as well.

Project description:BackgroundExtracapsular hip fractures comprise approximately half of all hip fractures and the incidence of hip fractures is exponentially increasing. Extramedullary fixation using a dynamic hip screw (DHS) has been the gold standard method of operative treatment for unstable extracapsular fractures, however, in recent years, intramedullary nails (IMN) have become a popular alternative. IMN versus DHS is continuously discussed and debated in literature. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to directly compare the peri- and post-operative outcomes of these two techniques to provide an up-to-date analysis of which method of fixation is superior.MethodsThe MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Web of Science Database were searched for eligible studies from 2008 to April 2022 that compared peri- and post-operational outcomes for patients undergoing IMN or DHS operations for fixation of unstable extracapsular hip fractures (PROSPERO registration ID:CRD42021228335). Primary outcomes included mortality rate and re-operation rate. Secondary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, transfusion requirement, complication, and failure of fixation rate. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and GRADE analysis tool, respectively.ResultsOf the 6776 records identified, 22 studies involving 3151 patients were included in the final review. Our meta-analysis showed no significant differences between mortality rates (10 studies, OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, p = 0.88) or re-operation rates (10 studies, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.64, p = 0.91) between the two procedures. There were also no significant differences found between complication rates (17 studies, OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.79 to 2.12, p = 0.31) and failure of fixation rates (14 studies, OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.38, p = 0.35). However, DHS operations had a significantly longer operation time (p < 0.0001) and blood loss (p < 0.00001) than IMN operations.ConclusionOverall, based on the outcomes assessed, this review has demonstrated that there is no significant difference in the post-operative outcomes for DHS vs IMN, however a significant difference exists in two of the intraoperative outcomes assessed in this review.

Project description:IntroductionPrevious evidence has established that early surgery is beneficial to improve outcomes for individuals with native hip fractures in the elderly population. Patients who sustain a periprosthetic fracture have been demonstrated to have similar demographics and outcomes as those with native fractures around the hip and knee. We therefore set out to determine if there is a similar difference in perioperative outcomes between early and delayed surgery for periprosthetic fractures of the hip and knee through a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsLiterature search outputs were screened for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The groups of early surgery and delayed surgery were defined by study authors. The primary outcome measure was 30 day mortality. Where there was sufficient study homogeneity, a random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Individual study risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I criteria, with the GRADE criteria used for independent outcome evaluation. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO prior to commencement (Registration number CRD42019149360).ResultsThe inclusion criteria was met in 11 studies (n = 3006). Mean time to surgery from admission for reporting studies was 64 h. 59.6% patients underwent early surgery as defined by the study authors. We identified a significantly lower risk of 30 day mortality for those with early surgery versus delayed surgery (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.05, 0.90; p = 0.04, n = 2022). There were also significantly better outcomes for early versus delayed surgery regarding: medical complications, length of stay, transfusion risk, and reoperation. The quality of evidence for all the individual outcomes was low or very low.ConclusionsThere is evidence that delaying surgery in those with periprosthetic fractures of the hip and knee has a deleterious impact on mortality and other important patient outcomes. There are, however, notable limitations to the existing available literature, with further appropriately designed large-scale studies required to confirm these findings.

Dataset Information

Immediate versus delayed surgery for hip fractures in the elderly patients: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Immediate versus delayed surgery for hip fractures in the elderly patients: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets