Skip to main content
. 2018 Sep 21;18:222. doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0898-9

Table 5.

Differences in secondary outcomes between the two treatment groups

Adjusted
LAT AMIS LAT AMIS Effect p Effect p
n n Mean Mean Delta Delta
Postoperative delirium 89 77 0.94 0.87 −0.07 0.667 −0.12 0.468
LOS 96 78 11.39 10.97 −0.41 0.630 −0.70 0.393
Operative time 97 82 100.1 96.3 −3.8 0.419 −5.3 0.253
Erythrocyte concentrates within 72 h 97 82 0.73 0.50 −0.23 0.174 −0.31 0.078
% % RR RR
Implant related infections 96 79 5.2 8.9 1.70 0.347 1.81 0.281
SAE during follow up 90 73 30.0 26.0 0.87 0.577 0.90 0.682
Return to no WA at 3 months 45 23 28.9 26.1 0.90 0.809 0.80 0.578
Return to no WA at 12 months 34 17 61.8 64.7 1.05 0.836 0.94 0.829
%dead %dead HR HR
1 year mortality 99 82 20.2 28.0 1.46 0.205 1.64 0.149

The results are more favorable in the LAT arm for the avoidance of implant related infections and the one-year mortality. There is also an advantage for return to no walking aids at three months. The AMIS arm, on the other hand was more favorable for all the other aspects analyzed. However, none of the differences reached statistical significance. Adjustment was performed for pfFIM and age

WA Walking aid, SAE serious adverse event or surgery related complication