4.5 Article

Mortality after hip fracture in the elderly: The role of a multidisciplinary approach and time to surgery in a retrospective observational study on 23,973 patients

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 13-17

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2016.04.014

关键词

Hip fracture; Orthogeriatric management; Time to surgery; Patient outcomes; Elderly; Hospital care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Since most hip fractures occur in fragile patients, an important step forward in the treatment may be a co-managed, multidisciplinary treatment approach with orthopaedic surgeons and geriatricians. This multidisciplinary care model (MCM) is implemented in some Tuscan hospitals, while in hospitals with the usual care model (UCM) medical consultation is required only as deemed necessary by the admitting surgeon. The primary aim of this study was to assess the effect of the MCM on 30-day mortality, compared with the UCM. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients with main diagnosis of hip fracture, as reported in the hospital admission discharge reports, aged 65 years and older, who underwent surgery in Tuscan hospitals from 2010 to 2013. A multilevel logistic regression model was performed to assess the effect of the MCM vs the UCM. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used as a proxy for case mix complexity. Results: 23,973 patients were included: 23% men and 77% women; the mean age was 83.5 years. The multilevel analysis showed that mortality was significantly higher in the UCM, after adjusting for gender, age, comorbidity and timing of surgery (OR = 1.32; 95% CI 1.09-1.59; p = 0.004). Surgical delay was not significantly associated with higher mortality rates. Conclusions: A co-managed approach to hip fracture, with orthopaedic surgeons and geriatricians, offers a multidisciplinary pathway for the elderly and leads to a reduction in mortality after hip fracture surgery. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据