Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: We aimed to determine the association between lower extremity arterial calcification (LEAC) and referral to a closed unit (CU), length of stay, 90-day readmissions, and 1-year mortality in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 705 patients who underwent primary THA, identifying 64 patients (9.13%) who had LEAC and 641 who did not have LEAC. Patients who had LEAC were older (77 ± 10.0 versus 67 ± 11.5 years; P < 0.001) and had more comorbidities, except for a history of thromboembolic and oncologic diseases (P > 0.05). A preoperative antero-posterior pelvic radiograph was used to assess the presence of LEAC. Admission to CU, length of stay, 90-day readmissions, and 1-year mortality were recorded. A logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors for referral to CU.
Results: Patients who had LEAC had a higher incidence of admission to the intensive care unit (8 of 64 [12.5%] versus 8 of 641 [1.09%]; P < 0.001), a longer hospital stay (4.7 ± 1.8 versus 4.2 ± 1.3 days; P = 0.006), more readmissions (16 of 64 [25%] versus 33 of 641 [5.15%]; P < 0.001), and a higher 1-year mortality rate (6 of 64 [9.3%] versus 0 of 641 [0%]; P < 0.001) than patients who did not have LEAC. Of the patients who had LEAC admitted to CU, only 3 of 8 had a previous indication to do so in the preoperative assessment performed by the Department of Anesthesiology, while all non-LEAC ones referred to CU did so. Logistic regression analysis showed that LEAC was a risk factor for admission to CU (odds ratio = 4.77; 95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 20.25; P = 0.034).
Conclusions: The presence of LEAC was a risk factor for transfer to CU, longer in-hospital stays, more readmissions, and a higher 1-year mortality rate. Identifying patients who have LEAC can aid in the preoperative assessment and risk stratification of patients planned for primary THA.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2024.08.016 | DOI Listing |