Similar Function and Adverse Events between THA and Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture .
Cette étude a été identifiée comme étant potentiellement à fort impact.
L'indicateur High Impact de l'ENP, basé sur l'IA, estime l'influence qu'un article est susceptible d'avoir en intégrant des signaux provenant à la fois de la revue dans laquelle il est publié et du contenu scientifique de l'article lui-même.
Développé à l'aide d'un traitement du langage naturel de pointe, le modèle High Impact de l'ENP prédit avec plus de précision les futures citations d'une étude que le seul facteur d'impact de la revue.
Cela permet d'identifier plus tôt les recherches cliniquement significatives et aide les lecteurs à se concentrer sur les articles les plus susceptibles d'influencer les pratiques futures.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2025;13(3):38 J Arthroplasty. 2019;(34)8:1837-1843.10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.070A meta-analysis of 17 studies (13 different trials), including randomized and prospective controlled trial was performed, with a total of 1364 patients. The outcomes of interest included mortality at 1 month, 1 year, and overall, infection, dislocation, revision, function (Harris Hip Score (HHS)) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL, based on Short-Form (SF)-36). Subgroup analyses were performed looking at unipolar vs. bipolar HA, mean age < or > than 80 years, and follow-up < or > 4 years. The included studies assigned patients to total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus hemairthroplasty (HA) for displaced femoral neck fractures (Garden III and Garden IV). Follow-up ranged from1 to 13 years. There was no difference in overall mortality, 30-day mortality, or 1-year mortality. There was also no difference between the two groups in in terms of infection, revision rate, function, or HRQoL. There was a significantly lower rate of dislocation in the HA group compared to THA (RR 0.37, p < 0.0001). The only finding that changed with subgroup analysis was that dislocation rate was only different in the first four years of follow-up, but not in studies with longer follow-up.
Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?
Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?
Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?
Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?
Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?
How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
4/4
Introduction
4/4
Accessing Data
3/4
Analysing Data
3/4
Results
4/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
In patients with displaced femoral neck fractures, does hemiarthroplasty, compared to total hip arthroplasty, result in any difference in functional outcomes, mortality, or other adverse events?
- There was no significant difference between total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in terms of mortality at 1 month (THA: 5.2% vs. HA: 3.7%, p = 0.42), 1 year (THA: 13.3% vs. HA: 14.4% , p = 0.63), or final follow-up.
- There was no significant difference between THA and HA in terms of infection (THA: 2.5% vs. HA: 2.6%, p = 0.89) or revision (THA: 5.7% vs. HA: 8.8%, p = 0.05)
- There were no significant differences in terms of Harris Hip Score or Short-Form 36 scores
- There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of dislocation rate (THA: 8.1% vs. HA: 2.67%, p = 0.0001)
- Subgroup analysis revealed no changes to the above findings for mean age > or < 80 years of age or bipolar vs unipolar HA
- Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in dislocation rate in studies with follow up > than 4 years
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
Overall, in terms of mortality, infection, revision, function, and health-related quality of life, total hip arthroplasty (THA) is similar to hemiarthroplasty in patients with displaced femoral neck fracture (Garden III and Garden IV). There is a significantly higher dislocation rate in the short to medium-term with THA, though this effect washes out beyond four years of follow-up.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
Based on this study, there is no convincing reason to opt for total hip arthroplasty, which involves a longer and more extensive surgical procedure, for most patients with displaced femoral neck fracture. This remains true regardless of patient age. If the decision is made to opt for total hip arthroplasty, surgeons may wish to consider strategies to reduce the likelihood of dislocation such as the use of dual mobility acetabular components.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
