Öz
Kaynakça
- Bäcker HC, Wu CH, Maniglio M, Wittekindt S, Hardt S, Perka C. Epidemiology of proximal femoral fractures. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2021; 12: 161-5.
- Osteoporosis: review of the evidence for prevention, diagnosis and treatment and cost-effectiveness analysis. Executive summary. Osteoporos Int. 1998; 8: S3-S6.
- Yoo JI, Ha YC, Lim JY, Kang H, Yoon BH, Kim H. Early rehabilitation in elderly after arthroplasty versus internal fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fractures of femur: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Korean Med Sci 2017; 32: 858-67.
- Socci AR, Casemyr NE, Leslie MP, Baumgaertner MR. Implant options for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: rationale, evidence, and recommendations. Bone Joint J 2017; 99: 128-33.
- Morri M, Forni C, Marchioni M, Bonetti E, Marseglia F, Cotti A. Which factors are independent predictors of early recovery of mobility in the older adults' population after hip fracture? A cohort prognostic study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138: 35-41.
- World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. In: Amended by 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul: World Medical Association; 2008.
- Chan G, Hughes K, Barakat A, et al. Inter- and intra-observer reliability of the new AO/OTA classification of proximal femur fractures. Injury 2021; 52: 1434-7.
- Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51: 737-55.
- Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 1965; 14: 61
- Çiloğlu O, Karaali E, Kuşvuran Özkan A, Ekiz T. Distally-fixed non-modular monoblock fluted long-stem hemiarthroplasty versus proximal femoral nailing for elderly patients with an osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture: a retrospective comparative study. Hip Int 2020; 1120700020963529.
- Sahin S, Ertürer E, Oztürk I, Toker S, Seçkin F, Akman S. Radiographic and functional results od osteosynthesis using the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in treatment of usnstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2010; 44: 127-34.
- Chudyk AM, Jutai JW, Petrella RJ, Speechley M. Systematic review of hip fracture rehabilitation practices in the elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 246-62.
- Hardy DC, Descamps PY, Krallis P, et al. Use of an intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures. A prospective, randomized study of one hundred patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80: 618-30.
- Lahtinen A, Leppilahti J, Vähänikkilä H, et al. Costs after hip fracture in independently living patients: a randomised comparison of three rehabilitation modalities. Clin Rehabil 2017; 31: 672-85.
- Tsauo jy, Leu WS, Chen YT, Yang RS. Effects on function and quality of life postoperative home besed physical therapy for patients with hip fracture. Arch Ohys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1953-7.
- Tinetti ME, Baker DI, Gottschalk M, et al. Home-based multicomponent rehabilitation program for older persons after hip fracture: arandomized trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 916-22.
- Shetty SH, Dhond AB, Agarwal A, Kharat A, Singh A. Intertrochanteric fracture of femur in elderly – A comparative analysis between hemiarthroplasty and osteosynthesis. Int J Orthop Sci 2017; 3: 449-452
- Lieberman D, Lieberman D. Rehabilitation following hip fracture surgery: a comparative study of females and males. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 21; 26: 85-90.
- Magaziner J, Mangione KK, Orwig D, et al. Effect of a multicomponent home-based physical therapy intervention on ambulation after hip fracture in older adults: the CAP randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019; 322: 946-56.
The effect of rehabilitation support on male and female after intertrochanteric femoral fracture treatment
Öz
Aim: The aim of our study is to investigate the effect of rehabilitation support after intertrochanteric femur fractures on men and women. The results of the groups consisting of male and female patients who received and did not receive rehabilitation support were compared both between the same sexes and between different sexes.
Material and Method: One hundred twenty four patients were evaluated under two groups according to whether they received rehabilitation support or not. First group (no rehabilitation support) consists of 42 females, and 29 males, and second group (rehabilitation support) consists of 30 females, and 23 males. While the patients in the first group performed the exercises themselves at home, the patients in the second group received rehabilitation support under the guidance of a physiotherapist. The patients in both groups were also evaluated under 2 subgroups as male and female.
Results: There was no significant differences between both groups in terms of mean age, female male ratio, fracture type, mean follow-up time, Harris hip score, Barthel life index, Parker and Palmer Mobility Scale before fracture. There was also no significant difference between the subgroups of the both groups. Harris hip score, Barthel life index, and Parker and Palmer Mobility Score of males were better than females at the final follow-up in the first group. The results of females were worse than pre-fracture, but there was no difference in males at the final follow-up. Harris hip score, Barthel life index, and Parker and Palmer Mobility Score of males were better than females at the final follow-up in the second group as first group. While the results of females were not different compared to pre-fracture, the results were better in males at the final follow-up. When the female and male subgroups of both groups were compared with each other, it was determined that the results in male and female subgroups in the 2nd group were significantly better.
Conclusion: The continuity of rehabilitation support after hospital discharge is very important. Although rehabilitation support positively affects the results in male and female, it is much more important for female than male.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Intertrochanteric femur fracture Rehabilitation support Functional results.
Kaynakça
- Bäcker HC, Wu CH, Maniglio M, Wittekindt S, Hardt S, Perka C. Epidemiology of proximal femoral fractures. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2021; 12: 161-5.
- Osteoporosis: review of the evidence for prevention, diagnosis and treatment and cost-effectiveness analysis. Executive summary. Osteoporos Int. 1998; 8: S3-S6.
- Yoo JI, Ha YC, Lim JY, Kang H, Yoon BH, Kim H. Early rehabilitation in elderly after arthroplasty versus internal fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fractures of femur: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Korean Med Sci 2017; 32: 858-67.
- Socci AR, Casemyr NE, Leslie MP, Baumgaertner MR. Implant options for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: rationale, evidence, and recommendations. Bone Joint J 2017; 99: 128-33.
- Morri M, Forni C, Marchioni M, Bonetti E, Marseglia F, Cotti A. Which factors are independent predictors of early recovery of mobility in the older adults' population after hip fracture? A cohort prognostic study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138: 35-41.
- World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. In: Amended by 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul: World Medical Association; 2008.
- Chan G, Hughes K, Barakat A, et al. Inter- and intra-observer reliability of the new AO/OTA classification of proximal femur fractures. Injury 2021; 52: 1434-7.
- Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51: 737-55.
- Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 1965; 14: 61
- Çiloğlu O, Karaali E, Kuşvuran Özkan A, Ekiz T. Distally-fixed non-modular monoblock fluted long-stem hemiarthroplasty versus proximal femoral nailing for elderly patients with an osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture: a retrospective comparative study. Hip Int 2020; 1120700020963529.
- Sahin S, Ertürer E, Oztürk I, Toker S, Seçkin F, Akman S. Radiographic and functional results od osteosynthesis using the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in treatment of usnstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2010; 44: 127-34.
- Chudyk AM, Jutai JW, Petrella RJ, Speechley M. Systematic review of hip fracture rehabilitation practices in the elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 246-62.
- Hardy DC, Descamps PY, Krallis P, et al. Use of an intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures. A prospective, randomized study of one hundred patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80: 618-30.
- Lahtinen A, Leppilahti J, Vähänikkilä H, et al. Costs after hip fracture in independently living patients: a randomised comparison of three rehabilitation modalities. Clin Rehabil 2017; 31: 672-85.
- Tsauo jy, Leu WS, Chen YT, Yang RS. Effects on function and quality of life postoperative home besed physical therapy for patients with hip fracture. Arch Ohys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1953-7.
- Tinetti ME, Baker DI, Gottschalk M, et al. Home-based multicomponent rehabilitation program for older persons after hip fracture: arandomized trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 916-22.
- Shetty SH, Dhond AB, Agarwal A, Kharat A, Singh A. Intertrochanteric fracture of femur in elderly – A comparative analysis between hemiarthroplasty and osteosynthesis. Int J Orthop Sci 2017; 3: 449-452
- Lieberman D, Lieberman D. Rehabilitation following hip fracture surgery: a comparative study of females and males. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 21; 26: 85-90.
- Magaziner J, Mangione KK, Orwig D, et al. Effect of a multicomponent home-based physical therapy intervention on ambulation after hip fracture in older adults: the CAP randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019; 322: 946-56.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi |
| Bölüm | Orijinal Makale |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 17 Ocak 2022 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2022 Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1 |
Üniversitelerarası Kurul (ÜAK) Eşdeğerliği: Ulakbim TR Dizin'de olan dergilerde yayımlanan makale [10 PUAN] ve 1a, b, c hariç uluslararası indekslerde (1d) olan dergilerde yayımlanan makale [5 PUAN]
Dahil olduğumuz İndeksler (Dizinler) ve Platformlar sayfanın en altındadır.
Not: Dergimiz WOS indeksli değildir ve bu nedenle Q olarak sınıflandırılmamıştır.
Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu (YÖK) kriterlerine göre yağmacı/şüpheli dergiler hakkındaki kararları ile yazar aydınlatma metni ve dergi ücretlendirme politikasını tarayıcınızdan indirebilirsiniz. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/journal/2316/file/4905/show
Dergi Dizin ve Platformları
Dizinler; ULAKBİM TR Dizin, Index Copernicus, ICI World of Journals, DOAJ, Directory of Research Journals Indexing (DRJI), General Impact Factor, ASOS Index, WorldCat (OCLC), MIAR, EuroPub, OpenAIRE, Türkiye Citation Index, Türk Medline Index, InfoBase Index, Scilit, vs.
Platformlar; Google Scholar, CrossRef (DOI), ResearchBib, Open Access, COPE, ICMJE, NCBI, ORCID, Creative Commons vs.