Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEl-Abed, Kaldoun
dc.contributor.authorMcGuinness, Anthony
dc.contributor.authorBrunner, Jack
dc.contributor.authorDallovedova, Pietro
dc.contributor.authorO'Connor, Philip
dc.contributor.authorKennedy, John G
dc.date.accessioned2012-02-03T15:07:20Z
dc.date.available2012-02-03T15:07:20Z
dc.date.issued2012-02-03T15:07:20Z
dc.identifier.citationActa Orthop Belg. 2005 Feb;71(1):48-54.en_GB
dc.identifier.issn0001-6462 (Print)en_GB
dc.identifier.issn0001-6462 (Linking)en_GB
dc.identifier.pmid15792207en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/208916
dc.description.abstractAs health care costs increase, evaluating treatment methods in femoral neck fractures to determine the most effective treatment paradigm will become increasingly important. The current study compared two methods of treatment in similar cohorts of displaced femoral neck fractures. One hundred and twenty two patients were randomly assigned to two groups: In Group A, 62 patients were treated with a hemiarthroplasty. In group B, 60 patients were treated with dynamic screw fixation. Patients were evaluated at a minimum 3 year follow-up. Using the Matta functional hip score, 42% of group A and 70% of group B had good to excellent results. This difference was significant (p = 0.004). A significant agreement between physician assessment using the Matta score, and patient perception of outcome using the SF-36 scale was demonstrated (r = 0.64). No statistical difference between groups for revision surgery existed. Both physician based and patient based outcome scores favour retention and internal fixation of the femoral head in this cohort of patients at a short-term follow-up.
dc.language.isoengen_GB
dc.subject.meshAgeden_GB
dc.subject.meshAged, 80 and overen_GB
dc.subject.meshArthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/*methodsen_GB
dc.subject.meshBone Cementsen_GB
dc.subject.meshBone Screwsen_GB
dc.subject.meshCohort Studiesen_GB
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_GB
dc.subject.meshFemoral Neck Fractures/*surgeryen_GB
dc.subject.mesh*Hip Prosthesisen_GB
dc.subject.meshHumansen_GB
dc.subject.meshMaleen_GB
dc.subject.meshPatient Satisfactionen_GB
dc.subject.meshProsthesis Designen_GB
dc.subject.meshReoperationen_GB
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcomeen_GB
dc.titleComparison of outcomes following uncemented hemiarthroplasty and dynamic hip screw in the treatment of displaced subcapital hip fractures in patients aged greater than 70 years.en_GB
dc.contributor.departmentCork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalActa orthopaedica Belgicaen_GB
dc.description.provinceMunster
html.description.abstractAs health care costs increase, evaluating treatment methods in femoral neck fractures to determine the most effective treatment paradigm will become increasingly important. The current study compared two methods of treatment in similar cohorts of displaced femoral neck fractures. One hundred and twenty two patients were randomly assigned to two groups: In Group A, 62 patients were treated with a hemiarthroplasty. In group B, 60 patients were treated with dynamic screw fixation. Patients were evaluated at a minimum 3 year follow-up. Using the Matta functional hip score, 42% of group A and 70% of group B had good to excellent results. This difference was significant (p = 0.004). A significant agreement between physician assessment using the Matta score, and patient perception of outcome using the SF-36 scale was demonstrated (r = 0.64). No statistical difference between groups for revision surgery existed. Both physician based and patient based outcome scores favour retention and internal fixation of the femoral head in this cohort of patients at a short-term follow-up.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record