Prosthesis or osteosynthesis for the treatment of a pathological hip fracture? A nationwide registry-based cohort
Panagiotis Tsagkozis1,2, Jessica Ehne1, Rikard Wedin1,2
1Karolinska University Hospital, Solna 17176, Stockholm, Sweden.
Aims:
How endoprosthetic replacement compares to osteosynthesis in the treatment of pathologic hip fractures as far as functional outcome and use of healthcare resources is concerned remains largely unknown. We aimed to investigate this in a nationwide registry.
Methods:
We analyzed the functional outcome after surgery for a pathological fracture of the hip in terms of post-operative pain and ambulatory capacity. The preferred surgical method depending on the level of the treating unit was also examined. Furthermore, we documented the length of hospital stay and the patterns of discharge and compared them between these two methods.
Results:
Patients operated with an endoprosthesis reported significantly lower pain at follow-up. Both methods (endoprosthetic replacement and osteosynthesis) were equally effective in restoring the ambulatory capacity and demanded a similar length of stay in hospital. Orthopaedic surgeons working in hospitals with dedicated sarcoma teams were more likely to use a prosthesis rather than osteosynthesis, when compared to surgeons working at other university hospitals or emergency hospitals.
Conclusion:
Endoprosthetic replacement results in a better functional outcome in terms of post-operative pain without consuming more healthcare resources. Orthopaedic surgeons working in hospitals with sarcoma centers are more likely to use prostheses as compared to surgeons working at hospitals where dedicated musculoskeletal oncology teams are not available.
