IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0251894.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cement augmentation for trochanteric femur fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and observational studies

Author

Listed:
  • Ingmar F Rompen
  • Matthias Knobe
  • Bjoern-Christian Link
  • Frank J P Beeres
  • Ralf Baumgaertner
  • Nadine Diwersi
  • Filippo Migliorini
  • Sven Nebelung
  • Reto Babst
  • Bryan J M van de Wall

Abstract

Introduction: To date, it is unclear what the clinical benefit of cement augmentation in fixation for trochanteric fractures is. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare cement augmentation to no augmentation in fixation of trochanteric femur fractures in the elderly patients (>65 years) following low energy trauma. Methods: PubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL/CINAHL were searched for both randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing both treatments. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by study design (RCTs and observational studies). The primary outcome is overall complication rate. Secondary outcomes include re-operation rate, mortality, operation duration, hospital stay, general quality of life, radiologic measures and functional hip scores. Results: A total of four RCT’s (437 patients) and three observational studies (293 patients) were included. The effect estimates of RCTs were equal to those obtained from observational studies. Cement augmentation has a significantly lower overall complication rate (28.3% versus 47.2%) with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.3 (95%CI 0.1–0.7). The occurrence of device/fracture related complications was the largest contributing factor to this higher overall complication rate in the non-augmented group (19.9% versus 6.0%, OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.1–0.6). Cement augmentation also carries a lower risk for re-interventions (OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.1–0.7) and shortens the hospital stay with 2 days (95%CI -2.2 to -0.5 days). The mean operation time was 7 minutes longer in the augmented group (95%CI 1.3–12.9). Radiological scores (lag screw/blade sliding mean difference -3.1mm, 95%CI -4.6 to -1.7, varus deviation mean difference -6.15°, 95%CI; -7.4 to -4.9) and functional scores (standardized mean difference 0.31, 95%CI 0.0–0.6) were in favor of cement augmentation. Mortality was equal in both groups (OR 0.7, 95%CI 0.4–1.3) and cement related complications were rare. Conclusion: Cement augmentation in fixation of trochanteric femoral fractures leads to fewer complications, re-operations and shorter hospital stay at the expense of a slightly longer operation duration. Cementation related complications occur rarely and mortality is equal between treatment groups. Based on these results, cement augmentation should be considered for trochanteric fractures in elderly patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingmar F Rompen & Matthias Knobe & Bjoern-Christian Link & Frank J P Beeres & Ralf Baumgaertner & Nadine Diwersi & Filippo Migliorini & Sven Nebelung & Reto Babst & Bryan J M van de Wall, 2021. "Cement augmentation for trochanteric femur fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and observational studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-14, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251894
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251894
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251894
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251894&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0251894?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251894. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.