4.3 Article

Incidence, Costs and Predictors of Non-Union, Delayed Union and Mal-Union Following Long Bone Fracture

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15122845

关键词

bone; fracture; non-union; delayed union; mal-union; data linkage; costs

资金

  1. Zimmer PLC [ZIMMERCA14]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship [1106633]
  3. Australian Research Council Future Fellowship [FT170100048]
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1106633] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fracture healing complications are common and result in significant healthcare burden. The aim of this study was to determine the rate, costs and predictors of two-year readmission for surgical management of healing complications (delayed, mal, non-union) following fracture of the humerus, tibia or femur. Humeral, tibial and femoral (excluding proximal) fractures registered by the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry over five years (n = 3962) were linked with population-level hospital admissions data to identify two-year readmissions for delayed, mal or non-union. Study outcomes included hospital length-of-stay (LOS) and inpatient costs. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine demographic and injury-related factors associated with admission for fracture healing complications. Of the 3886 patients linked, 8.1% were readmitted for healing complications within two years post-fracture, with non-union the most common complication and higher rates for femoral and tibial shaft fractures. Admissions for fracture healing complications incurred total costs of $4.9 million AUD, with a median LOS of two days. After adjusting for confounders, patients had higher odds of developing complications if they were older, receiving compensation or had tibial or femoral shaft fractures. Patients who are older, with tibial and femoral shaft fractures should be targeted for future research aimed at preventing complications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据