RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to examine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of older patients who underwent hip fracture repair surgery. The secondary aims were to assess the predictors of the choice of spinal or general anaesthesia and to explore the risk factors for all-cause mortality. METHODS: This three-tertiary centres study was conducted at a tertiary care centre in Jordan. Clinical data include previous fracture history; medication details; comorbidities; surgical approach; and postoperative pain management. RESULTS: Overall, 1084 patients who underwent hip fracture repair were included in this study. The mean age of patients was 78 years, and 55.2% were women. Twenty-four were treated with bisphosphonates before the fracture, whereas 30 were in steroid therapy. Overall, 61.8% of patients underwent spinal anaesthesia, whereas 38.2% underwent general anaesthesia. Spinal anaesthesia group had a lower prevalence of cardiovascular accidents (16.3% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.014) and Alzheimer's (3.4% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.049) than the general anaesthesia group. In the spinal anaesthesia group, postoperative opioid administration (p = 0.025) and postoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.011) occurred more frequently than general anaesthesia group. In hospital, 30-day and all-cause mortality were comparable between both groups. Diabetes mellitus (HR = 2.6; 95%CI = 1.5-4.4; p = 0.001); cemented hip hemiarthroplasty (HR = 2.4; 95%CI = 1.1-5.1; p = 0.025); deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (HR = 5.0; 95%CI = 1.2-12.9; p = 0.001); and readmission within 1 month from surgery (HR = 3.6; 95%CI = 2.0-6.3; p < 0.001) were all significant predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the outcomes and factors associated with different anaesthesia types in hip fracture repair surgery. The anaesthesia type does not affect all-cause mortality in patients undergoing hip fracture repair.
RESUMO
AIM: The study aimed at investigating the differences in health status of women users and non-users of contraceptive methods and assess differences in contraception quality of life (CQoL) according to method used. METHODS: Across sectional study with 372 women between the ages of 18 and 49 years old were recruited. Participants completed the health status and the CQoL questionnaire, which was validated using factor analysis combining three factor loading measures with a good Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient. RESULTS: Results showed that there were no significant differences in health status between users and non-users. There was a significant difference in QoL according to the method used at the p <0.05 level for the three conditions F (2193) = 6.0 and p = 0.003. Post hoc analysis indicated that the total CQoL was significantly higher in IUD users (M = 55.7, SD = 9.6) than users of natural methods (M = 50, SD = 9.0, p < 0.01). In addition, the total CQoL was significantly higher among women from the southern region (M = 56.7, SD = 9.0) than from the northern and mid-regions (M = 49.5, SD = 0.07 and M = 52, SD = 10, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The physiological changes of women's QoL was affected by the use of the IUD method with significantly lower QoL scores than those who used oral contraceptives and non-hormonal methods. In addition, there was no significant difference in health status between users and non-users of contraceptive methods. IMPLICATIONS: The study has implications for contraceptive counselling on quality of life of women users of IUD and women from the south region and provides opportunities for the advancement of the reproductive health services in Jordan.