Hip Transposition Can Provide Early Walking Function After Periacetabular Tumor Resection: A Multicenter Study.
Reconstruction after periacetabular bone tumor resection involves important tradeoffs; large bone grafts or endoprostheses are reported to offer fair walking function in general but can be technically demanding and carry a high risk of severe complications. Conversely, hip transposition avoids implant-related risks, but stability and functional return may be less consistent. Fewer studies are available on hip transposition, which is also appealing in more resource-constrained environments, and little is known about the time course from surgery to functional return after hip transposition.
(1) What is the time course of recovery of walking function after hip transposition, especially in the first 6 months? (2) What factors are associated with a greater likelihood of early functional recovery? (3) Is early (2-month) functional recovery associated with a greater likelihood of walking ability and higher Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores?
Between 2009 and 2019, six tertiary care centers in Japan treated 48 patients with internal hemipelvectomy for malignant tumors. During that time, the preferred reconstructive approach was hip transposition, and 92% (44 of 48) of our patients were treated with this procedure. Among them, 86% (38 of 44) had follow-up of at least 6 months, had no local recurrence during that time, and were included in our retrospective study. We chose 6 months as the minimum follow-up duration because the endpoints in this study pertained to early recovery rather than reconstructive durability. Hip transposition involved moving the proximal end of the femur (femoral head, resection end of the trochanteric area, and spacers such as prostheses) upward to the underside of the resected ilium or the lateral side of the sacrum if sacroiliac joint resection was performed. The end of the proximal femur was stabilized to the remaining ilium or sacrum using polyethylene tape, polyethylene terephthalate mesh, an iliotibial tract graft, or an external fixator, according to the surgeon's preference. The median age at surgery was 46 years (range 9 to 76 years), there were 23 women and 15 men, and the median follow-up duration was 17 months (range 6 to 110 months). The postoperative time course of functional recovery was assessed with a record review, the timing of functional milestones was identified (wheelchair, walker, bilateral crutches, single crutch or cane, and walking without an aid), and the MSTS score at the final follow-up was assessed. Additionally, demographic and surgical factors were reviewed, and their association with short-term functional recovery and the final functional outcome was analyzed.
Patients started using a walker at median postoperative day (POD) 20 (IQR 14 to 36) and with bilateral crutches at median POD 35 (IQR 20 to 57). At POD 60, which was the approximate median date of discharge, 76% (29 of 38) of patients were able to walk using bilateral crutches (the early recovery group) and 24% (nine of 38) of patients were not able to do so (the delayed recovery group). No baseline factors were different between the two groups. The early recovery group had a higher median MSTS score than the delayed recovery group: 57% (range 17% to 90%) versus 45% (13% to 57%) (p = 0.047). Moreover, more patients acquired better function (a single crutch or cane or more) in the early recovery group, with a median of 5 months (95% CI 4 to 11) than did those in the delayed recovery group (median not reached) (p = 0.0006). The HR was 15.2 (95% CI 2.5 to 93). Forty-two percent (16 of 38) underwent additional surgery for wound management.
It took patients a fair amount of time to recover walking function after hip transposition, and patients who could not walk on bilateral crutches at POD 60 seemed less likely to regain walking function and were likely to have lower MSTS scores thereafter. Wound-related complications were frequent. This method may be a realistic alternative for younger patients who have the strength for a long rehabilitation period or those who want to minimize prosthesis-related complications. Future studies with more patients are necessary to understand the risk factors associated with delayed recovery.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.
Zhang L
，Iwata S
，Saito M
，Nakagawa M
，Tsukushi S
，Yoshida S
，Gokita T
，Ae K
，Nakashima S
，Watanuki M
，Akiyama T
... -
《-》
Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.
About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences).
We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes.
A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education.
To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually.
Not registered.
Pillay J
，Gaudet LA
，Saba S
，Vandermeer B
，Ashiq AR
，Wingert A
，Hartling L
... -
《Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
