The effects of bone-substitute augmentation on treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures

Chang, Fu-Chun; Chuang, Pao-Yao; Lee, Ching‐Yu; Lee, Chien-Yin; Chou, Ying‐Chao; Huang, Tsan-Wen; Huang, Kuo‐Chin; Shih, Hsin-Nung; Lee, Mel S.

doi:10.1016/j.bj.2020.05.013

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although research on developing implant designs for fixation of hip fractures is promising, augmenting bone implant interface utilizing absorbable and non-absorbable materials between metal implants and osteoporotic bone are emerging as the future direction [ 41 ]. Resorbable ceramic cement was reported to increase the implant fixation and prevent excessive screw sliding and cutout [ 42 , 43 ]. Recently, Joeri Kok et al have confirmed an injectable biphasic bone substitute could theoretically increase the initial hip cancellous fracture strength [ 44 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative effectiveness research on proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw in patients with trochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Xu¹,

Liu

Sezgin

et al. 2022

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The treatments for trochanteric fractures try to regain early mobility and limit morbidity and risk of reoperations. The most currently used dynamic hip screw (DHS) and the proximal femoral nail (PFN) are both with pros and cons. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of these interventions for trochanteric fractures by evaluating the surgical performance and postoperative outcomes. Methods PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register were searched for RCTs comparing DHS and PFN for trochanteric fractures. All selected studies and the risk of bias were assessed. Clinical data including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, successful closed reduction and complications like nonunion, implant failure and reoperation were recorded. Random-effects models were used in Review Manager software, and GRADE was applied for the interpretation of the evidence. Results From 286 identified trials, twelve RCTs including 1889 patients were eligible for inclusion; six RCTs directly comparing DHS with PFN, while other six compared DHS with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Compared to DHS, PFN had shorter operative time and led to less intraoperative blood loss. However, DHS need less intraoperative fluoroscopy time than PFN. No difference was seen for the achievement of closed reduction. For risk of postoperative complications, no difference was seen between PFN and DHS for non-union, risk of implant failure and revision surgery. Conclusions PFN(A) resulted in a shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss compared to DHS. However, no difference was seen for postoperative complications. Trial registration PROSPERO: CRD42021239974.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative effectiveness research on proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw in patients with trochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Xu¹,

Liu

Sezgin

et al. 2022

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…refer to a previous article by Chang et al. [ 41 ] where the latter presents bone-substitute augmentation (BSA) as means to prevent excessive sliding of a lag screw in the treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures. Hatano et al.…”

Section: Also In This Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

A finger in every pie – The versatility of chemokines

Kattner¹

2022

Biomedical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We read the article by Chang FC et al. [ 1 ] about the effect of bone-substitute augmentation (BSA) in the treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures with great interest. We would like to raise some concerns.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Letter regarding “the effects of bone-substitute augmentation on treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures”

Hatano

Yamamoto²,

Tomita

2022

Biomedical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of bone-substitute augmentation on treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures

Cited by 6 publications

References 32 publications

Comparative effectiveness research on proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw in patients with trochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Comparative effectiveness research on proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw in patients with trochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

A finger in every pie – The versatility of chemokines

Letter regarding “the effects of bone-substitute augmentation on treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About