Key result
Mobilization care and internal fixation devices have improved hip fracture treatment, though medical and technical complications remain significant challenges.
The shift from recumbency to mobilization care using internal fixation devices represents a major improvement in hip fracture treatment, though medical and technical complications remain.
Supports mobilization protocols in hip fracture care; leaves open optimal strategies to reduce persistent complications.
The greatest improvement in the treatment of hip fractures was the change from recumbency enforced by sand bags, spicas, or traction to mobilization care. This advance was made possible primarily by the development of internal fixation devices. Refinement of these devices and of surgical techniques has continued because problems and complications associated with treatment still remain. The articles in this symposium deal with current thinking on the treatment of fractures about the hip and how we may continue to improve our results. The major residual problems are found in two general areas. (1) Medical complications: The age and general medical condition of patients suffering from hip fractures predispose them to complications of recumbency such as thromboembolic disease, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, senile psychosis, and decubitus ulcers. (2) Technical complications: The forces acting about fractures in the region of the hip tend to produce varus at the fracture site. These forces
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gerald S. Laros (1975) conducted a review in Hip fracture. Mobilization care and internal fixation vs. Recumbency was evaluated. Mobilization care and internal fixation devices have improved hip fracture treatment, though medical and technical complications remain significant challenges.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: