Features of rehabilitative treatment of elderly patients after fractures of the proximal femur: analysis of methods and approaches
Автор: Mushriqi G.A.R.M., Akhtyamov I.F., Gubkina E.M.
Журнал: Вестник Национального медико-хирургического центра им. Н.И. Пирогова @vestnik-pirogov-center
Рубрика: Оригинальные статьи
Статья в выпуске: 4 т.19, 2024 года.
Бесплатный доступ
Backgraund: Proximal femur fractures are a serious medical problem, especially among elderly patients.Aims: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of various rehabilitative treatments among elderly patients with proximal femur fractures.Materials and methods: The research was conducted between 2022 and 2023 at the state autonomous healthcare institution “City Clinical Hospital No. 7 named after M.N. Sadykov” (Kazan, Russia). The study included 150 patients randomised to four groups. Group 1: patients after osteosynthesis with restorative treatment (n = 37), Group 2: patients after osteosynthesis without restorative treatment (n = 38), Group 3: patients after endoprosthesis with restorative treatment (n = 38), Group 4: patients after endoprosthesis without restorative treatment (n = 37). Rehabilitation treatment included physical therapy (PT) and physiotherapy. All patients received basic medical therapy, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics. Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare groups, and regression analysis were used to identify factors influencing treatment outcomes. Assessments were made pre-operatively, post-discharge and 3 months later using visual analogue scale (VAS), Harris pain scale, SF-36 quality of life scale and Rivermead pain scale.Results: The mean pain scores (VAS) at baseline were 8.0±0.5 (group 1), 7.9±0.4 (group 2), 7.8±0.3 (group 3) and 7.7±0.4 (group 4). After one month of treatment, the values decreased to 3.9±0.3, 5.4±0.4, 4.1±0.3 and 5.8±0.5, respectively. After three months, the values were 1.5±0.2, 3.7±0.3, 1.8±0.2 and 4.2±0.4, respectively. The analysis showed a significant improvement in patients who received restorative treatment compared to those who did not receive restorative treatment (p function show_eabstract() { $('#eabstract1').hide(); $('#eabstract2').show(); $('#eabstract_expand').hide(); }
Proximal femur fracture, osteosynthesis, endoprosthetics, rehabilitation, physiotherapy
Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/140308717
IDR: 140308717 | DOI: 10.25881/20728255_2024_19_4_42