3.8 Article

Blood-Transfusion Risk Factors after Intramedullary Nailing for Extracapsular Femoral Neck Fracture in Elderly Patients

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jfmk8010027

Keywords

blood loss; intertrochanteric fracture; pertrochanteric fracture; hip fracture; complication; ASA score; Charlson Comorbidity Index; risk factor; predictor factor

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative risk factors for blood transfusion in frail patients with extracapsular femoral neck fractures (eFNF) who undergo intramedullary nailing (IMN). The results showed that patients with lower preoperative hemoglobin levels and longer surgery times were more likely to require blood transfusion.
Background: Extracapsular femoral neck fractures (eFNF) are the third most common type of fracture in traumatology. Intramedullary nailing (IMN) is one of the most frequently used ortho-pedic treatments for eFNF. Blood loss is one of the main complications of this treatment. This study aimed to identify and evaluate the perioperative risk factors that lead to blood transfusion in frail patients with eFNF who undergo IMN. Methods: From July 2020 to December 2020, 170 eFNF-affected patients who were treated with IMN were enrolled and divided into two groups according to blood transfusion: NBT (71 patients who did not need a blood transfusion), and BT (72 patients who needed blood transfusion). Gender, age, BMI, pre-operative hemoglobin levels, in-ternational normalized ratio (INR) level, number of blood units transfused, length of hospital stay, surgery duration, type of anesthesia, pre-operative ASA score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and mortality rate were assessed. Results: Cohorts differed only for pre-operatively Hb and surgery time (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Patients who have a lower preoperative Hb level and longer surgery time have a high blood-transfusion risk and should be closely followed peri-operatively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available