4.4 Article

Gender related results in total knee arthroplasty: a 15-year evaluation of the Italian population

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-04222-2

关键词

Total knee arthroplasty; TKA; Knee; Italy; National hospital discharge reports; NHDR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed a continuous increase in the number of total knee arthroplasty procedures performed in Italy from 2001 to 2016, with a majority of surgeries performed on women. However, there was a higher percentage of procedures performed on males under the age of 50.
Introduction This study aimed to estimate separately in women and men the number of Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures performed in Italy from 2001 to 2016, exploring specific gender-related characteristics and trends. Materials and methods Data of this study were collected from the National Hospital Discharge Reports (NHDR) reported at the Italian Ministry of Health in the years between 2001 and 2016. The information included in this archive are the patient's sex, age, the year when the surgical procedure was performed and the length of the hospitalization. Results Between the years 2001 and 2016, a total of 848,863 TKAs have been performed in Italy. TKAs in women passed from 20,719 in 2001 to 49,320 in 2016 showing an increase of 138%, while TKAs in men passed from 6631 in 2001 to 23,601 in 2016 showing an increase of 256%. From the age of 50 onwards, there was a prevalence of procedures in women, from 63.2% in the 50-54 group to 85.7% in the 100 + group. Conversely, under the age of 50, there was a higher percentage of surgeries performed in males, 57.1% on a total of 16,434 TKA surgeries carried out in this age group. Conclusions This study showed that TKA is growing and heavily affecting the female population (70.6% of all TKAs) between 2001 and 2016. However, under 50 years old there was a higher percentage of surgeries performed in males (57.1%). The average number of days of hospitalization in females was higher than in males.

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

4.4
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