Internal fixation versus endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur for metastatic bone disease: Single institutional outcomes.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 34992334.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.jor.2021.11.003 and PMC identifier 8695262.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
This study compared internal fixation (IF) to proximal femur replacement (PFR) for proximal femoral metastasis. Between 2005 and 2019, 113 lesions underwent IF (<i>n</i> = 94) or PFR (<i>n</i> = 19). Revision risk was calculated with mortality as a competing event. The 5-year revision risk after IF was 17.6% (95% CI, 9.8%-27.3%) compared to 7.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-28.9%) after PFR (<i>p</i> = 0.59). PFR had longer operative times (<i>p</i> < 0.001), hospital stay (<i>p</i> = 0.039), and higher blood loss (<i>p</i> < 0.001) than IF, respectively. IF may be considered for patients with poor health and a limited prognosis given the less-invasive procedure and shorter hospital stay. III. Retrospective Study.
Anatomy
- femur