Does Surgical Approach Influence Complication Rate of Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures? A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Butler, M.; Forte, M.; Kane, R.L.; Joglekar, S.; Duval, S.J.; Swiontkowski, M.; Wilt, T. Treatment of Common Hip Fractures. Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess 2009, 184, 1–85. [Google Scholar]
- Butler, M.; Forte, M.L.; Joglekar, S.B.; Swiontkowski, M.F.; Kane, R.L. Evidence Summary: Systematic Review of Surgical Treatments for Geriatric Hip Fractures. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2011, 93, 1104–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gjertsen, J.-E.; Vinje, T.; Lie, S.A.; Engesæter, L.B.; Havelin, L.I.; Furnes, O.; Fevang, J.M. Patient Satisfaction, Pain, and Quality of Life 4 Months after Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures: A Comparison of 663 Fractures Treated with Internal Fixation and 906 with Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty Reported to the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Acta Orthop. 2008, 79, 594–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Arthroplasty and Hip Fractures. Available online: https://helse-bergen.no/nasjonal-kompetansetjeneste-for-leddproteser-og-hoftebrudd/norwegian-national-advisory-unit-on-arthroplasty-and-hip-fractures (accessed on 10 April 2023).
- Rogmark, C.; Fenstad, A.M.; Leonardsson, O.; Engesæter, L.B.; Kärrholm, J.; Furnes, O.; Garellick, G.; Gjertsen, J.-E. Posterior Approach and Uncemented Stems Increases the Risk of Reoperation after Hemiarthroplasties in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients: An Analysis of 33,205 Procedures in the Norwegian and Swedish National Registries. Acta Orthop. 2014, 85, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bauer, R.; Kerschbaumer, F.; Poisel, S.; Oberthaler, W. The Transgluteal Approach to the Hip Joint. Arch. Orthop. Traumat. Surg. 1979, 95, 47–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, A. Posterior Exposure of the Hip Joint. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. Vol. 1950, 32, 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, M.; Ganz, R. The Anterior Approach to Hip and Pelvis. Orthop. Traumatol. 2002, 10, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Light, T.R.; Keggi, K.J. Anterior Approach to Hip Arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1980, 152, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auffarth, A.; Resch, H.; Lederer, S.; Karpik, S.; Hitzl, W.; Bogner, R.; Mayer, M.; Matis, N. Does the Choice of Approach for Hip Hemiarthroplasty in Geriatric Patients Significantly Influence Early Postoperative Outcomes? A Randomized-Controlled Trial Comparing the Modified Smith-Petersen and Hardinge Approaches. J. Trauma Inj. Infect. Crit. Care 2011, 70, 1257–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, M.J. Lateral versus Posterior Approach for Insertion of Hemiarthroplasties for Hip Fractures: A Randomised Trial of 216 Patients. Injury 2015, 46, 1023–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watanabe, N.; Aiba, H.; Sagara, G. Prospective Randomised Study of Direct Anterior Approach Versus Posterior Approach for Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty of the Hip. Orthop. Procs. 2016, 98, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renken, F.; Renken, S.; Paech, A.; Wenzl, M.; Unger, A.; Schulz, A.P. Early Functional Results after Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture: A Randomized Comparison between a Minimal Invasive and a Conventional Approach. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2012, 13, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jianbo, J.; Ying, J.; Xinxin, L.; Lianghao, W.; Baoqing, Y.; Rongguang, A. Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Senile Femoral Neck Fractures: Minimally Invasive SuperPath Approach versus Traditional Posterior Approach. Injury 2019, 50, 1452–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verzellotti, S.; Candrian, C.; Molina, M.; Filardo, G.; Alberio, R.; Grassi, F.A. Direct Anterior versus Posterolateral Approach for Bipolar Hip Hemiarthroplasty in Femoral Neck Fractures: A Prospective Randomised Study. HIP Int. 2020, 30, 810–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ugland, T.O.; Haugeberg, G.; Svenningsen, S.; Ugland, S.H.; Berg, Ø.H.; Pripp, A.H.; Nordsletten, L. Biomarkers of Muscle Damage Increased in Anterolateral Compared to Direct Lateral Approach to the Hip in Hemiarthroplasty: No Correlation with Clinical Outcome: Short-Term Analysis of Secondary Outcomes from a Randomized Clinical Trial in Patients with a Displaced Femoral Neck Fracture. Osteoporos. Int. 2018, 29, 1853–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, Á.; Herrera, A.; Cuenca, J.; Panisello, J.; Tabuenca, A. Comparison of Two Different Posterior Approachs for Hemiarthroplasty of the Hip. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2002, 122, 51–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saxer, F.; Studer, P.; Jakob, M.; Suhm, N.; Rosenthal, R.; Dell-Kuster, S.; Vach, W.; Bless, N. Minimally Invasive Anterior Muscle-Sparing versus a Transgluteal Approach for Hemiarthroplasty in Femoral Neck Fractures-a Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial Including 190 Elderly Patients. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Keene, G.S.; Parker, M.J. Hemiarthroplasty of the Hip—The Anterior or Posterior Approach? A Comparison of Surgical Approaches. Injury 1993, 24, 611–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paton, R.W.; Hirst, P. Hemiarthroplasty of the Hip and Dislocation. Injury 1989, 20, 167–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unwin, A.J.; Thomas, M. Dislocation after Hemiarthroplasty of the Hip: A Comparison of the Dislocation Rate after Posterior and Lateral Approaches to the Hip. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 1994, 76, 327–329. [Google Scholar]
- Abram, S.G.F.; Murray, J.B. Outcomes of 807 Thompson Hip Hemiarthroplasty Procedures and the Effect of Surgical Approach on Dislocation Rates. Injury 2015, 46, 1013–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Biber, R.; Brem, M.; Singler, K.; Moellers, M.; Sieber, C.; Bail, H.J. Dorsal versus Transgluteal Approach for Hip Hemiarthroplasty: An Analysis of Early Complications in Seven Hundred and Four Consecutive Cases. Int. Orthop. 2012, 36, 2219–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Enocson, A.; Tidermark, J.; Törnkvist, H.; Lapidus, L.J. Dislocation of Hemiarthroplasty after Femoral Neck Fracture: Better Outcome after the Anterolateral Approach in a Prospective Cohort Study on 739 Consecutive Hips. Acta Orthop. 2008, 79, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kristensen, T.B.; Vinje, T.; Havelin, L.I.; Engesæter, L.B.; Gjertsen, J.-E. Posterior Approach Compared to Direct Lateral Approach Resulted in Better Patient-Reported Outcome after Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture: 20,908 Patients from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Acta Orthop. 2017, 88, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leonardsson, O.; Rolfson, O.; Rogmark, C. The Surgical Approach for Hemiarthroplasty Does Not Influence Patient-Reported Outcome: A National Survey of 2118 Patients with One-Year Follow-Up. Bone Jt. J. 2016, 98, 542–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ninh, C.C.; Sethi, A.; Hatahet, M.; Les, C.; Morandi, M.; Vaidya, R. Hip Dislocation After Modular Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2009, 24, 768–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pajarinen, J.; Savolainen, V.; Lindahl, J.; Hirvensalo, E. Factors Predisposing to Dislocation of the Thompson Hemiarthroplasty: 22 Dislocations in 338 Patients. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2003, 74, 45–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Svenøy, S.; Westberg, M.; Figved, W.; Valland, H.; Brun, O.C.; Wangen, H.; Madsen, J.E.; Frihagen, F. Posterior versus Lateral Approach for Hemiarthroplasty after Femoral Neck Fracture: Early Complications in a Prospective Cohort of 583 Patients. Injury 2017, 48, 1565–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baba, T. Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture Using the Direct Anterior Approach. WJO 2013, 4, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langlois, J.; Delambre, J.; Klouche, S.; Faivre, B.; Hardy, P. Direct Anterior Hueter Approach Is a Safe and Effective Approach to Perform a Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture: Outcome in 82 Patients. Acta Orthop. 2015, 86, 358–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pala, E.; Trono, M.; Bitonti, A.; Lucidi, G. Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Femur Neck Fractures: Minimally Invasive Direct Anterior Approach versus Postero-Lateral Approach. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2016, 26, 423–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsukada, S.; Wakui, M. Minimally Invasive Intermuscular Approach Does Not Improve Outcomes in Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture. J. Orthop. Sci. 2010, 15, 753–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hongisto, M.T.; Nuotio, M.S.; Luukkaala, T.; Väistö, O.; Pihlajamäki, H.K. Lateral and Posterior Approaches in Hemiarthroplasty. Scand. J. Surg. 2018, 107, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sayed-Noor, A.S.; Hanas, A.; Sköldenberg, O.G.; Mukka, S.S. Abductor Muscle Function and Trochanteric Tenderness after Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture. J. Orthop. Trauma 2016, 30, e194–e200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ozan, F.; Öncel, E.S.; Koyuncu, S.; Gürbüz, K.; Doğar, F.; Vatansever, F.; Duygulu, F. Effects of Hardinge versus Moore approach on postoperative outcomes in elderly patients with hip fracture. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2016, 9, 4425–4431. [Google Scholar]
- Mukka, S.; Mahmood, S.; Kadum, B.; Sköldenberg, O.; Sayed-Noor, A. Direct Lateral vs. Posterolateral Approach to Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2016, 102, 1049–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bush, J.B.; Wilson, M.R. Dislocation after Hip Hemiarthroplasty: Anterior Versus Posterior Capsular Approach. Orthopedics 2007, 30, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, V.R.; Ong, A.C.; Orozco, F.R.; Lutz, R.W.; Duque, A.F.; Post, Z.D. The Direct Anterior Approach Does Not Increase Return to Function following Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture. Orthopedics 2017, 40, e1055–e1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sierra, R.J.; Schleck, C.D.; Cabanela, M.E. Dislocation of Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty: Rate, Contributing Factors, and Outcome. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2006, 442, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nogler, M.; Randelli, F.; Macheras, G.A.; Thaler, M. Hemiarthroplasty of the Hip Using the Direct Anterior Approach. Oper. Orthop. Traumatol. 2021, 33, 304–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Vries, E.N.; Gardenbroek, T.J.; Ammerlaan, H.; Steenstra, F.; Vervest, A.M.J.S.; Hogervorst, M.; van Velde, R. The Optimal Approach in Hip Hemiarthroplasty: A Cohort of 1009 Patients. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2020, 30, 569–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, K.; Anwaier, D.; He, R.; Zhang, X.; Qin, S.; Wang, G.; Duan, X.; Tong, D.; Ji, F. Hidden Blood Loss after Hip Hemiarthroplasty Using the SuperPATH Approach: A Retrospective Study. Injury 2019, 50, 2282–2286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spina, M.; Luppi, V.; Chiappi, J.; Bagnis, F.; Balsano, M. Direct Anterior Approach versus Direct Lateral Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures: A Retrospective Comparative Study. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2021, 33, 1635–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jobory, A.; Rolfson, O.; Åkesson, K.E.; Arvidsson, C.; Nilsson, I.; Rogmark, C. Hip Precautions Not Meaningful after Hemiarthroplasty Due to Hip Fracture. Cluster-Randomized Study of 394 Patients Operated with Direct Anterolateral Approach. Injury 2019, 50, 1318–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lakhani, K.; Mimendia, I.; Porcel, J.A.; Martín-Domínguez, L.A.; Guerra-Farfán, E.; Barro, V. Direct Anterior Approach Provides Better Functional Outcomes When Compared to Direct Lateral Approach in Hip Hemiarthroplasty following Femoral Neck Fracture. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2022, 32, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- de Jong, L.; Klem, T.M.A.L.; Kuijper, T.M.; Roukema, G.R. The Minimally Invasive Anterolateral Approach versus the Traditional Anterolateral Approach (Watson-Jones) for Hip Hemiarthroplasty after a Femoral Neck Fracture: An Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. Int. Orthop. 2018, 42, 1943–1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladurner, A.; Schöfl, T.; Calek, A.K.; Zdravkovic, V.; Giesinger, K. Direct Anterior Approach Improves In-Hospital Mobility Following Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture Treatment. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2021, 142, 3183–3192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corrigan, C.M.; Greenberg, S.E.; Sathiyakumar, V.; Mitchell, P.M.; Francis, A.; Omar, A.; Thakore, R.V.; Obremskey, W.T.; Sethi, M.K. Heterotopic Ossification after Hemiarthroplasty of the Hip—A Comparison of Three Common Approaches. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2015, 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neyisci, C.; Erdem, Y.; Bilekli, A.B.; Bek, D. Direct Anterior Approach Versus Posterolateral Approach for Hemiarthroplasty in the Treatment of Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures in Geriatric Patients. Med. Sci. Monit. 2020, 26, e919993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gursoy, S.; Simsek, M.E.; Akkaya, M.; Dogan, M.; Bozkurt, M. Transtrochanteric Approach Can Provide Better Postoperative Care and Lower Complication Rate in the Treatment of Hip Fractures. CIA 2019, 14, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mansouri-Tehrani, M.M.; Yavari, P.; Pakdaman, M.; Eslami, S.; Nourian, S.M.A. Comparison of Surgical Complications Following Hip Hemiarthroplasty between the Posterolateral and Lateral Approaches. Int. J. Burns Trauma 2021, 11, 406–411. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Bűcs, G.; Dandé, Á.; Patczai, B.; Sebestyén, A.; Almási, R.; Nöt, L.G.; Wiegand, N. Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures with Minimally Invasive Anterior Approach in Elderly. Injury 2021, 52, S37–S43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Layson, J.T.; Coon, M.S.; Sharma, R.; Diedring, B.; Afsari, A.; Best, B. Comparing Postoperative Leg Length Discrepancy and Femoral Offset Using Two Different Surgical Approaches for Hemiarthroplasty of the Hip. Spartan Med. Res. J. 2021, 6, 25096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsailas, P.G.; Argyrou, C.; Valavanis, A. Management of Femoral Neck Fractures with the ALMIS Approach in Elderly Patients: Outcomes Compared to Posterior Approach. Injury 2021, 52, 3666–3672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cecere, A.B.; De Cicco, A.; Bruno, G.; Toro, G.; Errico, G.; Braile, A.; Schiavone Panni, A. SuperPath Approach Is a Recommendable Option in Frail Patients with Femoral Neck Fractures: A Case–Control Study. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2021, 142, 3265–3270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kamo, K.; Kido, H.; Kido, S. Comparison of the Incidence of Intra-Operative Fractures in Hip Hemi-Arthroplasty Performed in Supine and Lateral Positions. Hip Pelvis 2019, 31, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Orth, M.; Osche, D.; Mörsdorf, P.; Holstein, J.H.; Rollmann, M.F.; Fritz, T.; Pohlemann, T.; Pizanis, A. Minimal-Invasive Anterior Approach to the Hip Provides a Better Surgery-Related and Early Postoperative Functional Outcome than Conventional Lateral Approach after Hip Hemiarthroplasty following Femoral Neck Fractures. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2022, 143, 3173–3181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fullam, J.; Theodosi, P.G.; Charity, J.; Goodwin, V.A. A Scoping Review Comparing Two Common Surgical Approaches to the Hip for Hemiarthroplasty. BMC Surg. 2019, 19, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tol, M.C.J.M.; Willigenburg, N.W.; Willems, H.C.; Gosens, T.; Rasker, A.; Heetveld, M.J.; Schotanus, M.G.M.; Van Dongen, J.M.; Eggen, B.; Kormos, M.; et al. Posterolateral or Direct Lateral Approach for Cemented Hemiarthroplasty after Femoral Neck Fracture (APOLLO): Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial with Economic Evaluation and Natural Experiment Alongside. Acta Orthop. 2022, 93, 732–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aofoundation.org. Available online: https://surgeryreference.aofoundation.org/orthopedic-trauma/adult-trauma/proximal-femur/femoral-neck-fracture-subcapital-displaced/hemiarthroplasty#general-considerations (accessed on 1 May 2023).
- van der Sijp, M.P.L.; van Delft, D.; Krijnen, P.; Niggebrugge, A.H.P.; Schipper, I.B. Surgical Approaches and Hemiarthroplasty Outcomes for Femoral Neck Fractures: A Meta-Analysis. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 1617–1627.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graves, S.C.; Dropkin, B.M.; Keeney, B.J.; Lurie, J.D.; Tomek, I.M. Does Surgical Approach Affect Patient-Reported Function After Primary THA? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2016, 474, 971–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wang, Z.; Hou, J.; Wu, C.; Zhou, Y.; Gu, X.; Wang, H.; Feng, W.; Cheng, Y.; Sheng, X.; Bao, H. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Direct Anterior Approach versus Posterior Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2018, 13, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kunkel, S.T.; Sabatino, M.J.; Kang, R.; Jevsevar, D.S.; Moschetti, W.E. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Direct Anterior Approach for Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2018, 28, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Study | Design | Approach | Total n. of Patiens | N. of Patients for Group | Mean Age (Years) | Mean FU (Months) | Mean OT (min) | Mean EBL (mL) | Local Peri-Operative Complications | Revision Surgeries | Mean LOS (Days) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dislocation | Stem Loosening | Periprosthetic Fracture | Deep Infection | Wound Dehiscence/Superficial Infection | Intraoperative Fracture | Others * | TOTAL | ||||||||||||||||||||
n. | % | n. | % | n. | % | n. | % | n. | % | n. | % | n. | % | n. | % | n. | % | N/A | |||||||||
Kenee (1993) [19] | PCCS | AL | 531 | 302 | 81 | 12 | 56 | 251 | 5 | 1.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 18 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 1.3 | 39 | 12.9% | 0 | 0 | 34 |
PL | 229 | 81 | 48 | 197 | 10 | 4.3 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 3.5 | 2 | 0.9 | 6 | 2.6 | 4 | 1.7 | 22 | 9.6 | 52 | 22.7% | 0 | 0 | 33 | ||||
Paton (1989) [20] | RCCS | DL | 171 | 78 | 79.3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 | 2.6 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 | 2.6% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
PL | 93 | 79.3 | N/A | N/A | 8 | 8.6 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 8 | 8.6% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Unwin (1994) [21] | RCCS | DL | 2906 | 1250 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 41 | 3.3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 41 | 3.3% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
PL | 1656 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 149 | 9 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 149 | 9.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Abram (2014) [22] | RCCS | AL | 807 | 753 | N/A | 12 | N/A | N/A | 16 | 2.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 4.1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 1.9 | N/A | N/A | 64 | 8.5% | 33 | 4.1 | 26 |
PL | 54 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 7 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 13.0% | |||||||||||||
Biber (2012) [23] | RCCS | PL | 704 | 487 | 80.4 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 19 | 3.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 2.5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.6 | 15 | 3 | 49 | 10.1% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
DL | 217 | 80.3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 3.2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 14 | 6.4 | 23 | 10.6% | N/A | N/A | N/A | |||
Enocson (2008) [24] | RCCS | AL | 739 | 431 | 84 | 2.3 | N/A | N/A | 13 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 3.0% | 13 | 1.8 | N/A |
PL | 308 | 85 | N/A | N/A | 32 | 10.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 10.4% | N/A | ||||||
Kristensen (2016) [25] | RS | DL | 20,908 | 18,918 | 83 | 36 | 76 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | 757 | 4 | N/A |
PL | 1990 | 83 | 67 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | 139 | 7 | N/A | ||||
Leonardsson (2016) [26] | RCCS | DL | 2118 | 1140 | 85 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 10 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0.5 | 12 | 1.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0.7 | 36 | 3.2% | 36 | 3 | N/A |
PL | 978 | 85 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 20 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0.4 | 13 | 1.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.3 | 40 | 4.1% | 40 | 4 | N/A | |||
Ninh (2009) [27] | RCCS | PL | 144 | 115 | 77.3 | 12 | N/A | N/A | 9 | 7.8 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 9 | 7.8% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
DL | 29 | 77.3 | N/A | N/A | 2 | 6.9 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 | 6.9% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Pajarinen (2009) [28] | RCCS | PL | 338 | 86 | 83.2 | 6 | N/A | N/A | 14 | 16.3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 14 | 16.3% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
DL | 252 | 83.2 | N/A | N/A | 8 | 3.2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 8 | 3.2% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Parker (2015) [11] | RCT | DL | 216 | 108 | 84.3 | 12 | 53.6 | N/A | 2 | 1.9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2.9 | 6 | 5.6 | 1 | 0.9 | 13 | 12.0% | 2 | 1.9 | 20.3 |
PL | 108 | 83.6 | 54 | N/A | 1 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3.8 | 2 | 1.9 | 2 | 1.9 | 2 | 1.9 | 2 | 1.9 | 13 | 12.0% | 1 | 0.9 | 18.5 | ||||
Rogmark (2014) [5] | RS | PL | 33,205 | 11,999 | 84 | 32 | N/A | N/A | 443 | 1.3 | 13 | 0.04 | 154 | 0.5 | 424 | 1.3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 130 | 0.4 | 1164 | 9.7% | 477 | 4 | N/A |
DL | 21,206 | 84 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | 687 | 3.2 | N/A | ||||||||||||||
Svenøy (2017) [29] | RCCS | PL | 583 | 186 | 83.2 | 12 | 69.2 | N/A | 15 | 8.1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 12 | 6.5 | 3 | 1.6 | 30 | 16.1% | 8 | 4.3 | N/A | ||
DL | 397 | 82.6 | 66.7 | N/A | 4 | 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 20 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 32 | 8.1% | 2 | 0.5 | N/A | ||||||
Aiba (2015) [12] | RCT | DA | 29 | 13 | 81.5 | N/A | 85.6 | 198.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 4 | 13.8 | 6 | 46.2% | 0 | 0 | N/A |
PA | 16 | 78.6 | 61.8 | 146.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 10.3 | 3 | 18.8% | 0 | 0 | N/A | ||||
Auffarth (2011) [10] | RCT | DA | 48 | 24 | 82.6 | 6 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 6 | 25.0% | 1 | 4.2 | N/A |
DL | 24 | 83.7 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4.2 | 2 | 8.3 | 4 | 16.7% | 1 | 4.2 | N/A | ||||
Renken (2012) [13] | RCT | DA | 57 | 30 | 84 | 1.3 | 73.6 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3.3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3.3 | 2 | 6.7% | 0 | 0 | N/A |
AL | 27 | 87.5 | 64.8 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 7.4 | 3 | 11.1% | 0 | 0 | N/A | ||||
Baba (2013) [30] | PCCS | DA | 79 | 40 | 76.7 | 36 | 65.3 | 121 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.5% | 0 | 0 | 29.9 |
PL | 39 | 74.9 | 76.7 | 146 | 1 | 2.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5.1% | 0 | 0 | 29.3 | ||||
Langlois (2015) [31] | PCCS | DA | 82 | 38 | 86 | 22 | 65 | N/A | 1 | 2.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5.3 | 3 | 7.9% | 1 | 2.6 | N/A |
PL | 44 | 75 | 54 | N/A | 9 | 20.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.3 | 1 | 2.3 | 12 | 27.3% | 1 | 2.3 | N/A | ||||
Pala (2016) [32] | PCCS | DA | 109 | 55 | 89 | 24 | 47 | 289 | 1 | 1.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.8 | 3 | 5.5 | 5 | 9.1% | N/A | N/A | 12 |
PL | 54 | 87.6 | 57 | 213 | 4 | 7.4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.8 | 6 | 11.1% | N/A | N/A | 14 | ||||
Tsukada (2010) [33] | RCCS | DA | 83 | 44 | 80.4 | 12 | 75.1 | 370.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4.5 | 1 | 2.3 | 3 | 6.8% | 0 | 0 | 35.4 |
PL | 39 | 81.9 | 79.3 | 230 | 1 | 2.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.6% | 0 | 0 | 36.1 | ||||
Hongisto (2018) [34] | RCCS | DL | 269 | 151 | 82.9 | 12 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
PL | 118 | 82.5 | N/A | N/A | 4 | 3.4 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 4 | 3.4% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Sayed-Noor (2016) [35] | PCCS | DL | 48 | 24 | 83.4 | 12 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
PL | 24 | 82.7 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Ozan (2016) [36] | RCCS | DL | 233 | 86 | 78.3 | 17.1 | N/A | N/A | 4 | 4.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | 7 | 8.1% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
PL | 147 | 78.7 | N/A | N/A | 17 | 11.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 7.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 19.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||||
Mukka (2016) [37] | PCCS | DL | 185 | 76 | 83.5 | 12 | 90 | 254 | 3 | 3.9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.3 | 5 | 6.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 11.8% | 15 | 19.7 | N/A |
PL | 58 | 85.5 | 66 | 239 | 9 | 15.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 8.6 | 2 | 3.4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.7 | 17 | 29.3% | 9 | 15.5 | N/A | ||||
Bush (2007) [38] | RCCS | AL | 385 | 186 | 80.5 | 6 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | 7.3 |
PL | 199 | 79.2 | N/A | N/A | 9 | 4.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 11 | 5.5% | N/A | N/A | 6.4 | ||||
Carlson (2017) [39] | RCCS | DA | 160 | 85 | 82.7 | 6 | 42.9 | N/A | 2 | 2.4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3.5 | 1 | 1.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2.4 | 8 | 9.4% | 4 | 4.7 | 6.2 |
DL | 75 | 82.9 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 10.7% | 5 | 6.7 | 8.9 | ||||
Sierra (2006) [40] | RCCS | AL | 1802 | 1432 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 22 | 1.5 | N/A | N/A | 3 | 0.2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 25 | 1.7% | 15 | 1 | N/A |
PL | 245 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 5 | 2 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 0.4 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 6 | 2.4% | 2 | 0.8 | N/A | |||
DL | 125 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 5 | 4 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 5 | 4.0% | 4 | 3.2 | N/A | |||
Nogler (2021) [41] | RCCS | PL | 1158 | 656 | 89.1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 8 | 1.2 | N/A | N/A | 15 | 2.28 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 6 | 0.9 | N/A | N/A | 29 | 4.4% | N/A | N/A | 4.2 |
DL | 312 | 86.7 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3 | 0.96 | N/A | N/A | 8 | 2.56 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 4 | 1.28 | N/A | N/A | 15 | 4.8% | N/A | N/A | 4.8 | |||
DA | 116 | 85 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1 | 0.86 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 0.86 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 | 1.7 | N/A | N/A | 4 | 3.4% | N/A | N/A | 2.3 | |||
AL | 74 | 84.7 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1 | 1.35 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 1.35 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 | 2.7 | N/A | N/A | 4 | 5.4% | N/A | N/A | 2.8 | |||
de Vries (2019) [42] | RCCS | DL | 1009 | 493 | 87 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 7 | 1.4 | N/A | N/A | 14 | 2.8 | 23 | 4.5 | 11 | 2.2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 55 | 11.2% | N/A | N/A | 7 |
PL | 516 | 86 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 15 | 2.9 | N/A | N/A | 12 | 2.3 | 23 | 4.7 | 16 | 3.1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 66 | 12.8% | N/A | N/A | 7 | |||
Spina (2020) [44] | RCCS | DA | 75 | 37 | 87.6 | 12 | 87.7 | N/A | 1 | 2.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 2.7% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
DL | 38 | 87 | 82 | N/A | 2 | 5.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | 3 | 7.9% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Jobory (2021) [45] | RS | DL | 25,603 | 13,769 | N/A | 12 | N/A | N/A | 366 | 2.7 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 366 | 2.7% | 162 | 1.2 | N/A |
PL | 11,834 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 850 | 7.2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 850 | 7.2% | 241 | 2 | N/A | ||||
Lakhani (2021) [46] | RCCS | DA | 94 | 40 | 85.4 | 19.2 | 90 | N/A | 1 | 2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 12.5% | 2 | 5 | 8 |
DL | 54 | 85.8 | 90 | N/A | 2 | 3.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7.4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3.7 | 2 | 3.7 | 10 | 18.5% | 5 | 9.26 | 9 | ||||
Verzellotti (2019) [15] | RCT | DA | 100 | 50 | 85.3 | 6 | 72.6 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 5 | 10.0% | 0 | 0 | N/A |
PL | 50 | 85 | 64.1 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 12 | 6 | 12.0% | 0 | 0 | N/A | ||||
Ugland (2018) [16] | RCT | AL | 150 | 75 | 81.4 | 12 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
DL | 75 | 81.3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Ladurner (2021) [48] | RCCS | DA | 237 | 79 | 85.5 | N/A | 72.5 | 285.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 3.8% | 2 | 2.5 | 8.3 |
AL | 158 | 86 | 89.5 | 287 | 1 | 0.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 5.1 | 11 | 7.0% | 5 | 3.2 | 8.4 | ||||
Corrigan (2015) [49] | RCCS | DA | 82 | 26 | 78.5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 5 | 19 | 5 | 19.2% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
AL | 32 | 77.3 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 11 | 34 | 11 | 34.4% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
PL | 24 | 81.7 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 6 | 25 | 6 | 25.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Neyisci (2020) [50] | RCCS | PL | 110 | 54 | 83 | 15.5 | 110 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 | 11.3 |
DA | 56 | 82 | 90 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.8 | 3 | 5.4 | 4 | 7.1% | 0 | 0 | 8.2 | ||||
Gursoy (2019) [51] | RCCS | PL | 112 | 48 | 86.5 | 42 | 66.6 | N/A | 8 | 16.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | 10 | 20.8% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
DL | 64 | 87.1 | 60 | N/A | 3 | 4.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | 5 | 7.8% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Mansouri-Tehrani (2021) [52] | RCCS | DL | 154 | 99 | 78 | 36.5 | N/A | N/A | 6 | 6.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4.04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 29.3 | 39 | 39.4% | 3 | 3.03 | N/A |
PL | 55 | 75.4 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 1.81 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 27.3 | 18 | 32.7% | 1 | 1.81 | N/A | ||||
Bucs (2020) [53] | RCCS | DA | 94 | 51 | 79.4 | 4 | 52.3 | 738.23 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | 1.4 |
AL | 43 | 79.3 | 53.7 | 810.47 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | 3.1 | ||||
Layson (2021) [54] | RCCS | DA | 173 | 93 | 81.6 | N/A | 95.1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
AL | 80 | 79.1 | 74.8 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Saxer (2018) [18] | RCT | DL | 181 | 99 | 84 | 12 | 100.1 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5.1 | 0 | 0 | 46 | 46.5 | 51 | 51.5% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
DA | 82 | 84.4 | 96.3 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8.5% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Tsailas (2021) [55] | RCCS | AL | 100 | 50 | 80.9 | 47 | 75 | N/A | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 10.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
PL | 50 | 82.3 | 67.5 | N/A | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 18.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||
Kamo (2019) [57] | RCCS | AL | 194 | 25 | 82.2 | 10 | 80 | N/A | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 3.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 16 | 6 | 3.1 | 18 | 72.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A |
DA | 21 | 83 | 63 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 4 | 19.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||||||
DL | 9 | 87.1 | 82 | N/A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||||||
PL | 50 | 83.6 | 72 | N/A | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 6.0% | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||||||||
Orth (2022) [58] | RCCS | DA | 100 | 50 | 82.5 | 12 | 86.9 | 72.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 2.0% | N/A | N/A | 13.3 |
DL | 50 | 79.9 | 90.7 | 155.4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6 | N/A | N/A | 4 | 8.0% | N/A | N/A | 13.1 |
DA | AL | DL | PL | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Studies (n.) | 20 | 16 | 27 | 41 | 50 |
N. of patients | 1030 | 4131 | 59,110 | 33,007 | 97,576 |
Mean age (yrs) | 83.5 | 82.2 | 83.6 | 83.8 | 83.4 |
Mean follow-up (months) | 13.1 | 9.8 | 28.0 | 22.7 | 25.5 |
Complications (%) | 79 (7.7) | 258 (6.2) | 1901 (3.2) | 2762 (8.4) | 3773 (3.9) |
Revision surgery (%) | 10 (2.0) | 70 (2.9) | 1677 (3.0) | 965 (3.4) | 2678 (3.0) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Filippini, M.; Bortoli, M.; Montanari, A.; Pace, A.; Di Prinzio, L.; Lonardo, G.; Parisi, S.C.; Persiani, V.; De Cristofaro, R.; Sambri, A.; et al. Does Surgical Approach Influence Complication Rate of Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures? A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina 2023, 59, 1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59071220
Filippini M, Bortoli M, Montanari A, Pace A, Di Prinzio L, Lonardo G, Parisi SC, Persiani V, De Cristofaro R, Sambri A, et al. Does Surgical Approach Influence Complication Rate of Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures? A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina. 2023; 59(7):1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59071220
Chicago/Turabian StyleFilippini, Matteo, Marta Bortoli, Andrea Montanari, Andrea Pace, Lorenzo Di Prinzio, Gianluca Lonardo, Stefania Claudia Parisi, Valentina Persiani, Roberto De Cristofaro, Andrea Sambri, and et al. 2023. "Does Surgical Approach Influence Complication Rate of Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures? A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis" Medicina 59, no. 7: 1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59071220