Search

Objective: To investigate the risk factors for osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) after the treatment of femoral neck fracture in patients under 60 years old. Methods: A total of 250 cases of femoral neck fracture treated at 3 hospitals in Xuzhou from January 2002 to January 2016 were studied. The patients were followed up for 1~15 years, and the clinical data on femoral head necrosis after the femoral neck operation were analysed retrospectively. Risk factors were recorded, including age, gender, preoperative traction, time from injury to operation, reduction method, type of reduction, BMI, ASA classification, and quality of reduction. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the independent risk factors for ONFH after treatment of femoral neck fracture. Results: The duration of follow-up was 1~15 years, with an average of 7.5 years. None of the 250 patients had fracture non-union, but 40 (16%) had necrosis of the femoral head. The time to necrosis of the femoral head was 1~7 years after the operation, with an average of 3.8 years. Univariate analysis showed that the type of fracture, the quality of reduction, the removal of internal fixation, BMI and ASA classification were risk factors affecting necrosis of the femoral head in patients with femoral neck fracture, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that internal fixation, fracture type (displacement), reduction quality (dissatisfaction), BMI (> 25), and ASA grade (III + IV) were independent risk factors affecting femoral head necrosis in patients with femoral neck fracture. Conclusion: A variety of high-risk factors for femoral head necrosis are present after surgery with hollow compression screws for femoral neck fracture in adults. Removal of internal fixation, type of fracture, quality of reduction, BMI, and ASA classification were the most important risk factors influencing the development of femoral head necrosis. During treatment, there should be some targeted measures to reduce the incidence of necrosis of the femoral head. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for poor bowel preparation is controversial, and the optimal bowel preparation regimen for people with a high BMI is unclear. Methods: We prospectively included 710 individuals with high BMIs (≥ 24 kg/m2) who were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy from January to November 2021 at 7 hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated into 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) group (n=353) and 2 L PEG group (n=357). The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation, and the secondary outcomes included Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and adverse reactions during bowel preparation. Furthermore, we did exploratory subgroup analyses for adequate bowel preparation. Results: After enrollment, 15 individuals didn't undergo colonoscopy, finally 345 participants took 3 L split-dose PEG regimen, and 350 participants took 2 L PEG regimen for colonoscopic bowel preparation. 3 L split-dose PEG regimen was superior to 2 L PEG regimen in the rate of adequate bowel preparation (81.2% vs. 74.9%, P = 0.045), BBPS score (6.71±1.15 vs. 6.37±1.31, P < 0.001), and the rate of polyp detection (62.0% vs. 52.9%, P = 0.015). The cecal intubation rate was similar in both groups (99.7%). Regarding adverse reactions, individuals were more likely to feel nausea in the 3 L PEG group (30.9% vs. 19.3%; P = 0.001); however, the degree was mild. In the subgroup analysis for adequate bowel preparation, 3 L split-dose PEG regimen performed better than 2 L PEG regimen in the overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2) (P = 0.006) and individuals with constipation (P = 0.044), while no significant differences were observed in relatively normal (BMI 24-24.9 kg/m2) (P = 0.593) and obese individuals (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) (P = 0.715). Conclusions: 3 L split-dose PEG regimen is superior to 2 L PEG regimen for colonoscopic Bowel Preparation in relatively high-BMI individuals, especially overweight individuals (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2). Trial Registration: This trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR2000039068). The date of first registration, 15/10/2020, http://www.chictr.org.cn [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]