Dataset Information

Impact of timing of surgery in elderly hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: We aimed to assess the impact of timing of surgery in elderly patients with acute hip fracture on morbidity and mortality. We systematically searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and trial registries from 01/1997 to 05/2017, as well as reference lists of relevant reviews, archives of orthopaedic conferences, and contacted experts. Eligible studies had to be randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies, including patients 60 years or older with acute hip fracture. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, abstracted data, and critically appraised study quality. We conducted meta-analyses using the generic inverse variance model. We included 28 prospective observational studies reporting data of 31,242 patients. Patients operated on within 48?hours had a 20% lower risk of dying within 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.97). No statistical significant different mortality risk was observed when comparing patients operated on within or after 24?hours (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.01). Adjusted data demonstrated fewer complications (8% vs. 17%) in patients who had early surgery, and increasing risk for pressure ulcers with increased time of delay in another study. Early hip surgery within 48?hours was associated with lower mortality risk and fewer perioperative complications.

SUBMITTER: Klestil T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6141544 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of timing of surgery in elderly hip fracture patients: 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

Scientific reports 20180917 1

We aimed to assess the impact of timing of surgery in elderly patients with acute hip fracture on morbidity and mortality. We systematically searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and trial registries from 01/1997 to 05/2017, as well as reference lists of relevant reviews, archives of orthopaedic conferences, and contacted experts. Eligible studies had to be randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies, including patients 60 years or older with acute hip fra ...[more]

PMID: 30224765

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:OBJECTIVE:Older patients with hip fractures who are undergoing surgery are at high risk of significant mortality and morbidity including postoperative delirium. It is unclear whether different types of anaesthesia may reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium. This systematic review will investigate the impact of anaesthetic technique on postoperative delirium. Other outcomes included mortality, length of stay, complications and functional outcomes. DESIGN:Systematic review of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled studies. DATA SOURCES:Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to June 2018. Web of Science and ZETOC databases were searched for conference proceedings. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked, and clinical trial registers were searched to identify ongoing trials. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Studies were eligible if general and regional anaesthesia were compared in patients (aged 60 and over) undergoing hip fracture surgery, reporting primary outcome of postoperative delirium and secondary outcomes of mortality, length of hospital stay, adverse events, functional outcomes, discharge location and quality of life. Exclusion criteria were anaesthetic technique or drug not considered current standard practice; patients undergoing hip fracture surgery alongside other surgery and uncontrolled studies. RESULTS:One hundred and four studies were included. There was no evidence to suggest that anaesthesia type influences postoperative delirium or mortality. Some studies suggested a small reduction in length of hospital stay with regional anaesthesia. There was some evidence to suggest that respiratory complications and intraoperative hypotension were more common with general anaesthesia. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. All findings were described narratively and data were presented where possible in forest plots for illustrative purposes. CONCLUSIONS:While there was no evidence to suggest that anaesthesia types influence postoperative delirium, the evidence base is lacking. There is a need to ascertain the impact of type of anaesthesia on outcomes with an adequately powered, methodologically rigorous study. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42015020166.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous meta-analyses assessing anesthetic techniques in adult patients undergoing hip fractures surgery are available. However, whether the anesthetic technique is associated with risk of mortality and complications in geriatric patients with hip fractures remains unclear. This study was conducted to assess postoperative outcomes of anesthesia technique in geriatric patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. METHODS:Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CNKI, and CBM were searched from inception up to May 25, 2018. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the perioperative outcomes of technique of anesthesia (general or regional [epidural/spinal/neuraxial]) in geriatric patients (?60 years old) undergoing hip fracture surgery were included. Two investigators independently screened studies for inclusion and performed data extraction. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I and Chi-square tests. The odds ratio (OR) of the dichotomous data, mean difference (MD) of continuous data, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess the pooled data. RESULTS:Eleven retrospective and 2 RCTs were included. There was no difference in 30-day mortality (OR?=?0.96; 95% CI 0.86-1.08; P?=?.51) between the general and regional anesthesia groups. In-hospital mortality (OR?=?1.26; 95% CI 1.17-1.36; P?<?.001), acute respiratory failure (OR?=?2.66; 95% CI 2.34-3.02; P?<?.001), length of hospital stay (MD?=?0.33; 95% CI 0.24-0.42; P?<?.001), and readmission (OR?=?1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.18; P?=?.03) were significantly reduced in the regional anesthesia group. Pneumonia (OR?=?0.99; 95% CI 0.91-1.07; P?=?.79), heart failure (OR?=?0.97; 95% CI 0.86-1.09; P?=?.62), acute myocardial infraction (OR?=?1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.16; P?=?.10), acute renal failure (OR?=?1.32; 95% CI 0.97-1.79; P?=?.07), cerebrovascular accident (OR?=?1.08; 95% CI 0.82-1.42; P?=?.58), postoperative delirium (OR?=?1.51; 95% CI 0.16-13.97; P?=?.72), and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (OR?=?1.42; 95% CI 0.84-2.38; P?=?.19) were similar between the two anesthetic techniques. CONCLUSION:General anesthesia is associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality, acute respiratory failure, longer hospital stays, and higher readmission. There is evidence to suggest that regional anesthesia is associated with improved perioperative outcomes. Large RCTs are needed to explore the most optimal anesthetic techniques for geriatric patients with hip fractures before drawing final conclusions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018093582.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reported and to assess the quality of reporting PROs for elderly patients with a hip fracture in both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched on 1 March 2013 to 25 May 2021.Eligibility criteriaRCTs and observational studies on geriatric (≥65 years of age) patients, with one or more PRO as outcome were included.Data extraction and synthesisPrimary outcome was type of PRO; secondary outcome and quality assessment was measured by adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for patient-reported outcomes (CONSORT-PRO). Because of heterogeneity in study population and outcomes, data pooling was not possible.Results3659 studies were found in the initial search. Of those, 67 were included in the final analysis. 83.6% of studies did not adequately mention missing data, 52.3% did not correctly report how PROs were collected and 61.2% did not report adequate effect size. PRO limitations were adequately reported in 20.9% of studies and interpretation of PROs was adequately reported in 19.4% of studies. Most Quality of Life (QoL) outcomes were measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Levels, and pain as well as patient satisfaction by Visual Analogue Scale.ConclusionThis study found that a high variety of PRO measures are used to evaluate geriatric hip fracture care. In addition, 47.8% of studies examining PROs in elderly patients with hip fracture do not satisfy at least 50% of the CONSORT-PRO criteria. This enables poorly conducted research to be published and used in evidence-based medicine and, consequently, shared decision-making. More efforts should be undertaken to improve adequate reporting. We believe extending the CONSORT-PRO extension to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for observational studies would be a valuable addition to current guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundHip 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.MethodsWe 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.DiscussionSince 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 registrationPROSPERO 2017 CRD42017058216.

Dataset Information

Impact of timing of surgery in elderly hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Impact of timing of surgery in elderly hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets