scholarly journals Chronic hyponatremia in patients with proximal femoral fractures after low energy trauma: A retrospective study in a level-1 trauma center

Bone Reports ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 100234
Author(s):  
Daniel Bernd Hoffmann ◽  
Christian Popescu ◽  
Marina Komrakova ◽  
Lena Welte ◽  
Dominik Saul ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 154 (6) ◽  
pp. 401-406
Author(s):  
A. Mancini ◽  
A. Bonne ◽  
A. Pirvu ◽  
P. Porcu ◽  
P. Bouzat ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Ayman El-Menyar ◽  
Hassan Al-Thani ◽  
Ahammed Mekkodathil ◽  
Rafael Consunji ◽  
Monira Mollazehi ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
B. A. Maiorov ◽  
A. E. Tulchinskii ◽  
I. G. Belenkii ◽  
G. D. Sergeev ◽  
I. M. Barsukova ◽  
...  

Relevance. An in-house Protocol for proximal femoral fracture management was developed at Vsevolozhsk Clinical Interdistrict Hospital of Leningrad Region.Intention To demonstrate possible practical application of preliminary federal clinical guidelines at Level 1 trauma center in Leningrad Region including comparative analysis of its efficacy when treating intertrochanteric femoral fractures.Methodology. Post-surgery outcomes were retrospectively assessed in 86 patients of Vsevolozhsk Clinical Interdistrict Hospital (Group 1, per Protocol) and 28 patients of Tosno Clinical Interdistrict Hospital (Group 2, w/o Protocol) with intertrochanteric femoral fractures (31A by Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen classification and S72.1 by ICD-10).Results and Discussion. There were no significant differences in patients’ age, methods of anesthesia and osteosynthesis between the groups. Group 1 demonstrated statistically significant decrease in preoperative bed-days, time to sitting up in bed after surgery, ambulation with walkers and duration of hospitalization. Group 1 patients needed less assistance from other health-care professionals, less intensive therapy and blood transfusions.Conclusion. Adoption of in-house protocols, optimization of supply and staffing as well as involvement of multidisciplinary teams will improve management of proximal femoral fractures.


Author(s):  
R. Selvaraj ◽  
K. Nagappan ◽  
Aravind Kumar ◽  
C. Balaji

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Trochanteric femoral fractures are often seen in patients aged they can be caused by high-energy or low-energy trauma or may be pathological. Particularly in the elderly, hip fractures are a major cause of increased mortality and morbidity. Because of the decreased physical capacity, concomitant systemic diseases, and increased vulnerability to environmental dangers, even low-energy trauma can cause unstable femoral trochanteric fractures in this age group. Compare the functional outcome of the short proximal femoral nail with a long proximal femoral nail in proximal femoral fractures.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> This retrospective study was conducted in the Department of Orthopaedics, Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Chengalpattu Dist., Tamil Nadu, India. (KIMS &amp; RC). Palmer/Parker score is obtained for the functional outcome of the short proximal femoral nail with a long proximal femoral nail in proximal femoral fractures.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> It is concluded from our study that proximal femoral nailing is an attractive and suitable implant for Proximal Femoral Fractures and its use in unstable intertrochanteric fractures is very encouraging.  </p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> The database of our retrospective study regarding age &amp; sex incidence, clinicopathological features and therapeutic outcome was comparable to other studies in various literatures.</p>


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie A. Sewalt ◽  
Benjamin Y. Gravesteijn ◽  
Daan Nieboer ◽  
Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽  
Dennis Den Hartog ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Prehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. Methods We used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit. Results We included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92–0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%). Conclusions Benefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles.


1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Edward T. Rupert ◽  
J. Duncan Harviel ◽  
Grace S. Rozycki ◽  
Howard R. Champion

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document