Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Knee Surg Relat Res ; 32(1): 18, 2020 Apr 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32660578

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Megaprosthesis or endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal and distal femur is a well-established modality for treatment of tumors. The indications for megaprosthesis have been expanded to the treatment of some non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip, with the severe bone loss associated with failed arthroplasty, communited fractures in the elderly with poor bone quality, and resistant non-union. Th aim of this study is to find out whether megaprosthesis of the knee and hip is successful in the treatment of non-neoplastic condtions. The study comprises a review of the indications, complications, and outcomes of megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur in non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip joints. METHODS: We extensively reviewed the literature on non-neoplastic indications for megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur after performing a detailed search of the Pubmed database using the medical subject heading (MeSH) terms 'proximal femur replacement' or 'distal femur replacement' and 'hip or knee megaprosthesis.' The data obtained after the structured search were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The frequency distribution of the demographic data, indications, complications, and outcome was calculated. RESULT: We included ten studies (seven proximal femur replacement and three distal femur replacement) of 245 proximal femur and 54 distal femur mega prostheses for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions. Bone loss in failed arthroplasty, either due to periprosthetic fracture or deep infection, was the most common indication for megaprosthesis. Dislocation was the most common complication after proximal femur megaprosthesis, and infection was the leading cause of complications after distal femur megaprosthesis. CONCLUSION: Megaprosthesis for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions around the distal and proximal femur is a viable option for limb salvage, with an acceptable long-term outcome. Although the complications and survival rates of megaprosthesis in non-neoplastic conditions are inferior to a primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee but are comparable or better than the mega prosthetic replacement in the neoplastic conditions. Proximal femoral megaprosthesis has higher dislocation rates and requirement for revision compared to distal femoral megaprosthesis. However, the proximal femoral megaprosthesis has lower rates of infection, periprosthetic fractures, and soft tissue complications, as compared to distal femoral megaprosthetic replacement. Both associated with aseptic loosening but not statistically significant.

2.
Sci Rep ; 10(1): 4956, 2020 03 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32188901

RESUMO

Literature on earthquake impact on hospital admissions is lacking, particularly in low-resource settings. Our aim was to study the pattern of admissions before and after the 2015 earthquake in a tertiary hospital in Nepal. We used routine hospital data from 9,596 admissions, and defined four periods: pre-earthquake (pre-EQ), acute (EQ1), post-acute (EQ2), and post-earthquake (post-EQ). We compared length of hospital stay (LOS) across the study periods using negative binomial regressions. We used logistic regressions to study changes in probability of admission for diagnostic categories, and Generalized Additive Models to model the difference in number of admissions compared to pre-EQ baseline. LOS was longer in EQ1 than during pre-EQ, in particular for injury-related admissions. In EQ1, the odds of injury admissions increased, while they decreased for the majority of other diagnoses, with the odds of pregnancy-related admissions remaining low until post-EQ. The number of admissions dropped in EQ1 and EQ2, and returned to pre-EQ trends in post-EQ, accumulating 381 admissions lost (CI: 206-556). Our findings suggest that hospital disaster plans must not only foresee injury management after earthquakes, but also ensure accessibility, in particular for pregnant women, and promote a quick return to normality to prevent additional negative health outcomes.


Assuntos
Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Planejamento em Desastres/normas , Terremotos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Admissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Centros de Atenção Terciária/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Assistência à Saúde/tendências , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/tendências , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nepal , Admissão do Paciente/tendências , Gravidez , Adulto Jovem
3.
PLoS One ; 14(7): e0220016, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31318948

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In 2015, an earthquake killing 9,000 and injuring 22,000 people hit Nepal. The Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital (TUTH), a reference tertiary hospital, was operational immediately after the earthquake. We studied the profile of earthquake victims admitted in TUTH and assessed what factors could influence hospital length of stay. METHODS: An earthquake victim dataset was created based on patient records, with information on sex, age, date of admission and discharge, diagnosis, and surgical intervention. We performed an initial descriptive overview of the earthquake victims followed by a time-to-event analysis to compare length of hospital stay in different groups, using log rank test and cox regression to calculate Hazard Ratios. RESULTS: There were in total 501 admitted victims, with the peak of admissions occurring on the fifth day after the earthquake. About 89% had injury as main diagnosis, mostly in lower limbs, and 66% of all injuries were fractures. Nearly 69% of all patients underwent surgery. The median length of hospital stay was 10 days. Lower limb and trunk injuries had longer hospital stays than injuries in the head and neck (HR = 0.68, p = 0.009, and HR = 0.62 p = 0.005, respectively). Plastic surgeries had longer hospital stays than orthopaedic surgeries (HR = 0.57 p = 0.006). Having a crush injury and undergoing an amputation also increased time to discharge (HR = 0.57, p = 0.013, and HR = 0.65 p = 0.045 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital stay was particularly long in this sample in comparison to other studies on earthquake victims, indirectly indicating the high burden TUTH had to bear to treat these patients. To strengthen resilience, tertiary hospitals should have preparedness plans to cope with a large influx of injured patients after a large-scale disaster, in particular for the initial days when there is limited external aid.


Assuntos
Vítimas de Desastres/estatística & dados numéricos , Terremotos , Hospitalização , Centros de Atenção Terciária , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Demografia , Vítimas de Desastres/história , Feminino , História do Século XXI , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Masculino , Registros Médicos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nepal/epidemiologia , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA