Osteoporotic proximal humeral fracture (OPHF) is one of the common osteoporotic fractures in the aged, with an incidence only lower than vertebral compression fracture, hip fracture, and distal radius fracture. OPHF, secondary to osteoporosis and characterized by poor bone quality, comminuted fracture pattern, slow healing, and severely impaired shoulder joint function, poses a big challenge to the current clinical diagnosis and treatment. In the field of diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of OPHF, traditional Chinese and Western medicine have accumulated rich experience and evidence from evidence-based medicine and achieved favorable outcomes. However, there is still a lack of guidance from a relevant consensus as to how to integrate the advantages of the two medical systems and achieve the integrated diagnosis and treatment. To promote the diagnosis and treatment of OPHF with integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine, relevant experts from Orthopedic Expert Committee of Geriatric Branch of Chinese Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Youth Osteoporosis Group of Orthopedic Branch of Chinese Medical Association, Osteoporosis Group of Orthopedic Surgeon Branch of Chinese Medical Doctor Association, and Osteoporosis Committee of Shanghai Association of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine have been organized to formulate Expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporotic proximal humeral fracture with integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine ( version 2024) by searching related literatures and based on the evidences from evidence-based medicine. This consensus consists of 13 recommendations about the diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of OPHF with integrated traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine, aimed at standardizing, systematizing, and personalizing the diagnosis and treatment of OPHF with integrated traditional Chinse and Western medicine to improve the patients ′ function.

Objective: To explore the efficacy and potential mechanisms of the ethanol extract of Abelmoschus manihot (L.) Medic in contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). Methods: CIN rat models and human renal proximal tubular cells (HK-2) with iopromide-induced injury were employed to mimic CIN conditions. The effect of Abelmoschus manihot extract on the rat models and HK-2 cells was evaluated. In rat models, kidney function, histology, oxidative stress and apoptosis were determined. In HK-2 cells, cell viability, apoptosis, mitochondrial membrane potential, and endoplasmic reticulum stress were assessed. Results: Abelmoschus manihot extract significantly improved structural and functional impairments in the kidneys of CIN rats. Additionally, the extract effectively mitigated the decline in cellular viability and reduced iopromide-induced oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation. Mechanistic investigations revealed that Abelmoschus manihot extract prominently attenuated acute endoplasmic reticulum stress-mediated apoptosis by downregulating GRP78 and CHOP protein levels. Conclusions: Abelmoschus manihot extract can be used as a promising therapeutic and preventive agent in the treatment of CIN.

Chronic kidney disease（CKD）has a significant impact on global public health and is one of the important factors leading to the rise of incidence rate and mortality of non communicable diseases.Intestinal microecology is involved in many pathophysiological activities，such as immunity and nutrient absorption.With proposal of the concept of intestine-kidney axis in 2002，researchers found that the decline of glomerular filtration rate led to accumulation of uremic toxins in intestine，destroyed the intestinal mucosal barrier，led to the translocation of toxins，activated the systemic oxidative stress response，further promoted the progress of CKD.This article reviewed the function of gut microbiota，intestine-gut kidney axis，and the application of microbial preparations in CKD.

Objective:To analyze the differences in clinicopathological features of colon cancers and survival between patients with right- versus left-sided colon cancers.Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study. Information on patients with colon cancer from January 2016 to August 2020 was collected from the prospective registry database at Peking Union Medical College Hospital . Primary tumors located in the cecum, ascending colon, and proximal two‐thirds of the transverse colon were defined as right-sided colon cancers (RCCs), whereas primary tumors located in the distal third of the transverse colon, descending colon, or sigmoid colon were defined as left‐sided colon cancers (LCCs). Clinicopathological features were compared using the χ 2 test or Mann‐Whitney U test. Survival was estimated by Kaplan‐Meier curves and the log‐rank test. Factors that differed significantly between the two groups were identified by multivariate survival analyses performed with the Cox proportional hazards function. One propensity score matching was performed to eliminate the effects of confounding factors. Results:The study cohort comprised 856 patients, with TNM Stage I disease, 391 (45.7%) with Stage II, and 336 (39.3%) with Stage III, including 442 (51.6%) with LCC and 414 (48.4%) with RCC and 129 (15.1%). Defective mismatch repair (dMMR) was identified in 139 patients (16.2%). Compared with RCC, the proportion of men (274/442 [62.0%] vs. 224/414 [54.1%], χ 2=5.462, P=0.019), body mass index (24.2 [21.9, 26.6] kg/m 2 vs. 23.2 [21.3, 25.5] kg/m 2, U=78,789.0, P<0.001), and well/moderately differentiated cancer (412/442 [93.2%] vs. 344/414 [83.1%], χ 2=22.266, P<0.001) were higher in the LCC than the RCC group. In contrast, the proportion of dMMR (40/442 [9.0%] vs. 99/414 [23.9%], χ 2=34.721, P<0.001) and combined vascular invasion (106/442[24.0%] vs. 125/414[30.2%], χ 2=4.186, P=0.041) were lower in the LCC than RCC group. The median follow‐up time for all patients was 48 (range 33, 59) months. The log‐rank test revealed no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) ( P=0.668) or overall survival (OS) ( P=0.828) between patients with LCC versus RCC. Cox proportional hazards model showed that dMMR was significantly associated with a longer DFS (HR=0.419, 95%CI: 0.204?0.862, P=0.018), whereas a higher proportion of T3‐4 (HR=2.178, 95%CI: 1.089?4.359, P=0.028), N+ (HR=2.126, 95%CI: 1.443?3.133, P<0.001), and perineural invasion (HR=1.835, 95%CI: 1.115?3.020, P=0.017) were associated with poor DFS. Tumor location was not associated with DFS or OS (all P>0.05). Subsequent analysis showed that RCC patients with dMMR had longer DFS than did RCC patients with pMMR (HR=0.338, 95%CI: 0.146?0.786, P=0.012). However, the difference in OS between the two groups was not statistically significant (HR=0.340, 95%CI:0.103?1.119, P=0.076). After propensity score matching for independent risk factors for DFS, the log‐rank test revealed no significant differences in DFS ( P=0.343) or OS ( P=0.658) between patients with LCC versus RCC, whereas patient with dMMR had better DFS ( P=0.047) and OS ( P=0.040) than did patients with pMMR. Conclusions:Tumor location is associated with differences in clinicopathological features; however, this has no impact on survival. dMMR status is significantly associated with longer survival: this association may be stronger in RCC patients.

Objective:To explore the impact on safety and prognosis in patients with right-sided colon cancer participating in surgical clinical research.Methods:This retrospective cohort study utilized data from a randomized controlled trial (RELARC study) conducted by the colorectal surgery group at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in which laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) was compared with D2 radical resection for the management of right-sided colon cancer. The eligibility criteria were age 18–75 years, biopsy-proven colon adenocarcinoma, tumor located between the cecum and right 1/3 of the transverse colon, enhanced chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT scans suggesting tumor stage T2–T4N0M0 or TanyN+ M0, and having undergone radical surgical treatment from January 2016 to December 2019. Exclusion factors included multiple primary colorectal cancers, preoperative stage T1N0 or enlarged central lymph nodes, tumor involving surrounding organs requiring their resection, definite distant metastasis or otherwise unable to undergo R0 resection, history of any other malignant tumors within previous 5 years, intestinal obstruction, perforation, or gastrointestinal bleeding requiring emergency surgery, and assessed as unsuitable for laparoscopic surgery. Patients who had participated in the RELARC study were included in the RELARC group, whereas those who met the inclusion criteria but refused to participate in the RELAEC study were included in the control group. The main indicators studied were the patient's baseline data, surgery and perioperative conditions, pathological characteristics, adjuvant treatment, and postoperative follow-up (including average frequency of follow-up within the first 3 years) and survival (including 3-year disease-free survival rate (DFS) and 3-year overall survival rate (OS). Differences in these indicators between the RELARC and control groups were compared.Results:The study cohort comprised 290 patients, 173 in the RELARC group (RELARC-CME group, 82; RELARC-D2 group, 91) and 117 in the control group (CME control group, 72; D2 control group, 45). There was a significantly higher proportion of overweight patients (BMI ≥24 kg/m 2) in the RELARC-CME than in the CME control group (67.1% [55/82] vs. 33.3% [24/72], χ 2=17.469, P<0.001). There were no other statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics (all P>0.05). No significant disparities were found between the CME and D2 groups in terms of operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, combined organ resection, intraoperative blood transfusion, or intraoperative complications (all P>0.05). There was a trend toward Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher postoperative complications in the RELARC-CME group (24.4% [20/82]) than in the CME control group (18.1% [13/72]); however, this difference was not statistically significant (χ 2=0.914, P=0.339). Similarly, the difference in this rate did not differ significantly between the RELARC-D2 group (25.3% [23/91]) and D2 control group (24.4% [11/45], χ 2=0.011, P=0.916). The median duration of postoperative follow-up was significantly shorter in the RELARC groups than in the corresponding control groups. Specifically, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-CME and 7.2 (6.0, 9.0) months in the CME control group ( Z=-10.608, P<0.001). Similarly, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-D2 group as opposed to 8.3 (6.6, 9.0) months in the D2 control group ( Z=-10.595, P<0.001). The 3-year DFS rate (91.5%) and OS rate (96.3%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-CME group than in the CME control group (84.7% and 90.3%, respectively). The 3-year DFS rate (87.9%) and OS rate (96.7%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-D2 group than in the D2 control group (81.8% and 88.6%, respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Subgroup analysis according to pathological stage revealed that patients in the RELARC-D2 group with pN0 stage achieved a significantly superior 3-year OS rate than did those in the D2 control group (100% vs. 88.9%, P=0.008). We identified no statistically significant differences in survival rates between the remaining subgroups (all P>0.05). Conclusions:A high-quality surgical clinical trial with close follow-up can achieve perioperative safety and a trend toward improved survival outcomes.

Objective:To investigate the clinical characteristics of brain metastases after radical surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).Methods:The clinical characteristics of LARC with brain metastases treated in the Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital from 2013 to 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The inclusion criteria were rectal adenocarcinoma within 15 cm of the anal verge and having undergone radical surgery, and the exclusion criterion was primary malignant tumor of the brain. The main outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and disease-specific overall survival (determined as the interval between occurrence of brain metastasis to death from any causes). The Kaplan–Meier method was used for survival analysis.Results:We identified 4500 patients with LARC, 20 (0.4%) of whom had brain metastases. The mean age of patients with brain metastases was 63.8±9.3 years. They comprised five women and 15 men. The brain was the first site of metastasis in four patients (20%) whereas 18 patients had heterochronous extracranial metastases before brain metastasis. Two patients also had multi-organ metastases. The most common manifestations of brain metastases were dizziness and headache (five patients, 25%), sudden onset of limb weakness (four, 20%), sudden speech impairment (two, 10%), and polyopia (two, 10%). The metastases were diagnosed during follow-up in three patients (15%). Four of the patients were asymptomatic (20%). Treatment approaches included surgical resection (six patients, 30%), chemoradiotherapy (nine, 45%), and palliative (five, 25%). The median follow-up time was 45.5 (4–112) months until October 2023. 1y-OS, 3y-OS, and 5y-OS were 95.0%, 62.9%, and 43.3%, respectively. 1y-DFS, 3y-DFS, and 5y-DFS were 55.0%, 25.0%, and 5.0%, respectively. With brain metastasis as the starting point, the median duration of survival was 16 (10.2–21.8) months.Conclusion:The incidence of brain metastasis is relatively low in patients with LARC, who often have multiple synchronous extracranial metastases. Brain metastases lack specific manifestations and more often occur in male patients. Surgical intervention or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy may improve disease-specific survival to a certain extent. However, the overall prognosis remains poor.

Objective:To analyze the differences in clinicopathological features of colon cancers and survival between patients with right- versus left-sided colon cancers.Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study. Information on patients with colon cancer from January 2016 to August 2020 was collected from the prospective registry database at Peking Union Medical College Hospital . Primary tumors located in the cecum, ascending colon, and proximal two‐thirds of the transverse colon were defined as right-sided colon cancers (RCCs), whereas primary tumors located in the distal third of the transverse colon, descending colon, or sigmoid colon were defined as left‐sided colon cancers (LCCs). Clinicopathological features were compared using the χ 2 test or Mann‐Whitney U test. Survival was estimated by Kaplan‐Meier curves and the log‐rank test. Factors that differed significantly between the two groups were identified by multivariate survival analyses performed with the Cox proportional hazards function. One propensity score matching was performed to eliminate the effects of confounding factors. Results:The study cohort comprised 856 patients, with TNM Stage I disease, 391 (45.7%) with Stage II, and 336 (39.3%) with Stage III, including 442 (51.6%) with LCC and 414 (48.4%) with RCC and 129 (15.1%). Defective mismatch repair (dMMR) was identified in 139 patients (16.2%). Compared with RCC, the proportion of men (274/442 [62.0%] vs. 224/414 [54.1%], χ 2=5.462, P=0.019), body mass index (24.2 [21.9, 26.6] kg/m 2 vs. 23.2 [21.3, 25.5] kg/m 2, U=78,789.0, P<0.001), and well/moderately differentiated cancer (412/442 [93.2%] vs. 344/414 [83.1%], χ 2=22.266, P<0.001) were higher in the LCC than the RCC group. In contrast, the proportion of dMMR (40/442 [9.0%] vs. 99/414 [23.9%], χ 2=34.721, P<0.001) and combined vascular invasion (106/442[24.0%] vs. 125/414[30.2%], χ 2=4.186, P=0.041) were lower in the LCC than RCC group. The median follow‐up time for all patients was 48 (range 33, 59) months. The log‐rank test revealed no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) ( P=0.668) or overall survival (OS) ( P=0.828) between patients with LCC versus RCC. Cox proportional hazards model showed that dMMR was significantly associated with a longer DFS (HR=0.419, 95%CI: 0.204?0.862, P=0.018), whereas a higher proportion of T3‐4 (HR=2.178, 95%CI: 1.089?4.359, P=0.028), N+ (HR=2.126, 95%CI: 1.443?3.133, P<0.001), and perineural invasion (HR=1.835, 95%CI: 1.115?3.020, P=0.017) were associated with poor DFS. Tumor location was not associated with DFS or OS (all P>0.05). Subsequent analysis showed that RCC patients with dMMR had longer DFS than did RCC patients with pMMR (HR=0.338, 95%CI: 0.146?0.786, P=0.012). However, the difference in OS between the two groups was not statistically significant (HR=0.340, 95%CI:0.103?1.119, P=0.076). After propensity score matching for independent risk factors for DFS, the log‐rank test revealed no significant differences in DFS ( P=0.343) or OS ( P=0.658) between patients with LCC versus RCC, whereas patient with dMMR had better DFS ( P=0.047) and OS ( P=0.040) than did patients with pMMR. Conclusions:Tumor location is associated with differences in clinicopathological features; however, this has no impact on survival. dMMR status is significantly associated with longer survival: this association may be stronger in RCC patients.

Objective:To explore the impact on safety and prognosis in patients with right-sided colon cancer participating in surgical clinical research.Methods:This retrospective cohort study utilized data from a randomized controlled trial (RELARC study) conducted by the colorectal surgery group at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in which laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) was compared with D2 radical resection for the management of right-sided colon cancer. The eligibility criteria were age 18–75 years, biopsy-proven colon adenocarcinoma, tumor located between the cecum and right 1/3 of the transverse colon, enhanced chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT scans suggesting tumor stage T2–T4N0M0 or TanyN+ M0, and having undergone radical surgical treatment from January 2016 to December 2019. Exclusion factors included multiple primary colorectal cancers, preoperative stage T1N0 or enlarged central lymph nodes, tumor involving surrounding organs requiring their resection, definite distant metastasis or otherwise unable to undergo R0 resection, history of any other malignant tumors within previous 5 years, intestinal obstruction, perforation, or gastrointestinal bleeding requiring emergency surgery, and assessed as unsuitable for laparoscopic surgery. Patients who had participated in the RELARC study were included in the RELARC group, whereas those who met the inclusion criteria but refused to participate in the RELAEC study were included in the control group. The main indicators studied were the patient's baseline data, surgery and perioperative conditions, pathological characteristics, adjuvant treatment, and postoperative follow-up (including average frequency of follow-up within the first 3 years) and survival (including 3-year disease-free survival rate (DFS) and 3-year overall survival rate (OS). Differences in these indicators between the RELARC and control groups were compared.Results:The study cohort comprised 290 patients, 173 in the RELARC group (RELARC-CME group, 82; RELARC-D2 group, 91) and 117 in the control group (CME control group, 72; D2 control group, 45). There was a significantly higher proportion of overweight patients (BMI ≥24 kg/m 2) in the RELARC-CME than in the CME control group (67.1% [55/82] vs. 33.3% [24/72], χ 2=17.469, P<0.001). There were no other statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics (all P>0.05). No significant disparities were found between the CME and D2 groups in terms of operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, combined organ resection, intraoperative blood transfusion, or intraoperative complications (all P>0.05). There was a trend toward Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher postoperative complications in the RELARC-CME group (24.4% [20/82]) than in the CME control group (18.1% [13/72]); however, this difference was not statistically significant (χ 2=0.914, P=0.339). Similarly, the difference in this rate did not differ significantly between the RELARC-D2 group (25.3% [23/91]) and D2 control group (24.4% [11/45], χ 2=0.011, P=0.916). The median duration of postoperative follow-up was significantly shorter in the RELARC groups than in the corresponding control groups. Specifically, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-CME and 7.2 (6.0, 9.0) months in the CME control group ( Z=-10.608, P<0.001). Similarly, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-D2 group as opposed to 8.3 (6.6, 9.0) months in the D2 control group ( Z=-10.595, P<0.001). The 3-year DFS rate (91.5%) and OS rate (96.3%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-CME group than in the CME control group (84.7% and 90.3%, respectively). The 3-year DFS rate (87.9%) and OS rate (96.7%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-D2 group than in the D2 control group (81.8% and 88.6%, respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Subgroup analysis according to pathological stage revealed that patients in the RELARC-D2 group with pN0 stage achieved a significantly superior 3-year OS rate than did those in the D2 control group (100% vs. 88.9%, P=0.008). We identified no statistically significant differences in survival rates between the remaining subgroups (all P>0.05). Conclusions:A high-quality surgical clinical trial with close follow-up can achieve perioperative safety and a trend toward improved survival outcomes.

Objective:To investigate the clinical characteristics of brain metastases after radical surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).Methods:The clinical characteristics of LARC with brain metastases treated in the Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital from 2013 to 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The inclusion criteria were rectal adenocarcinoma within 15 cm of the anal verge and having undergone radical surgery, and the exclusion criterion was primary malignant tumor of the brain. The main outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and disease-specific overall survival (determined as the interval between occurrence of brain metastasis to death from any causes). The Kaplan–Meier method was used for survival analysis.Results:We identified 4500 patients with LARC, 20 (0.4%) of whom had brain metastases. The mean age of patients with brain metastases was 63.8±9.3 years. They comprised five women and 15 men. The brain was the first site of metastasis in four patients (20%) whereas 18 patients had heterochronous extracranial metastases before brain metastasis. Two patients also had multi-organ metastases. The most common manifestations of brain metastases were dizziness and headache (five patients, 25%), sudden onset of limb weakness (four, 20%), sudden speech impairment (two, 10%), and polyopia (two, 10%). The metastases were diagnosed during follow-up in three patients (15%). Four of the patients were asymptomatic (20%). Treatment approaches included surgical resection (six patients, 30%), chemoradiotherapy (nine, 45%), and palliative (five, 25%). The median follow-up time was 45.5 (4–112) months until October 2023. 1y-OS, 3y-OS, and 5y-OS were 95.0%, 62.9%, and 43.3%, respectively. 1y-DFS, 3y-DFS, and 5y-DFS were 55.0%, 25.0%, and 5.0%, respectively. With brain metastasis as the starting point, the median duration of survival was 16 (10.2–21.8) months.Conclusion:The incidence of brain metastasis is relatively low in patients with LARC, who often have multiple synchronous extracranial metastases. Brain metastases lack specific manifestations and more often occur in male patients. Surgical intervention or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy may improve disease-specific survival to a certain extent. However, the overall prognosis remains poor.

Objective:To explore the clinical value of a trinity strategy for the treatment of multiple orthopedic trauma.Methods:A retrospective case series study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 1 267 patients with multiple orthopedic trauma admitted to Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine and the First Affiliated Hospital of Navy Medical University from June 2013 to May 2023, including 862 males and 405 females, aged 18-93 years [(55.2±19.8)years]. Associated injuries included hemorrhagic shock in 632 patients, traumatic wet lung in 274, cranial injuries in 135, abdominal and pelvic bleeding in 116, pneumothorax in 89, urinary injury in 13, and vesical rupture in 8. All the patients were treated with the trinity strategy and the treatment process was divided into the phases of first aid, remodeling, and rehabilitation. The first aid phase focused on stabilizing symptoms and saving lives; the remodeling phase centered on restoring the anatomical structure and alignment; the rehabilitation phase aimed for functional recovery through the integration of both Western and traditional Chinese medicine. The all-cause mortality within 30 days after surgery and fracture healing time were calculated; the excellent and good rates of Constant-Murley shoulder score, Mayo elbow score, Gartland-Werley wrist score, Harris hip score, Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score and the American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score at the last follow-up and the overall excellent and good rate of all joint function scores were measured. The short form health survey (SF-36) scores were collected preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively, including 8 aspects such as physical functioning, physical role, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional role, and mental health. The incidence of postoperative complications was recorded.Results:All the patients were followed up for 6-18 months [(10.2±4.2)months]. The mortality rate during the acute phase (within 30 days after surgery) was 2.37% with 12 deaths due to hemorrhagic shock, 10 due to traumatic brain injury, 6 due to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), and 2 due to pulmonary infection. The average fracture healing time averaged 3.8-18 months [(11.5±4.2)months], with 89.49% of the patients having bone union within 12 months after surgery, 8.93% having bone union within 18 months after surgery, and 1.58% undergoing reoperation. For the patients with internal fixation failure and nonunion, the average healing time was extended to (10.2±2.2)months and (13.7±3.3)months respectively. At the last follow-up, the excellent and good rates of Constant-Murley shoulder score, Mayo elbow score, Gartland-Werley wrist score, Harris hip score, HSS knee score, and AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score were 83.93%, 90.24%, 94.12%, 85.57%, 88.46%, and 92.31% respectively, with an overall excellent and good rate of 89.11%. At 6 months after surgery, the SF-36 scores of all the patients in the eight dimensions,including the physical functioning, physical role, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional role, and mental health were (74.4±8.6)points, (44.7±14.4)points, (77.4±10.9)points, (68.4±18.2)points, (72.5±16.0)points, (76.8±8.7)points, (49.9±17.6)points, and (72.8±17.9)points, significantly improved compared with those before operation [(63.4±12.7)points, (30.9±17.4)points, (56.4±18.0)points, (55.4±24.7)points, (53.5±21.0)points, (55.8±24.3)points, (36.9±24.0)points, (58.8±21.6)points] ( P<0.01). Complications of different degrees occurred in 214 patients (16.89%), including lung infections in 118 patients (9.31%), lower extremity deep vein thrombosis in 50(3.95%), pressure injuries in 26(2.05%), internal fixation failure in 12(0.95%), and nonunion in 8(0.63%). Conclusions:The trinity strategy provides whole-process management, personalized treatment, and overall rehabilitation for multiple orthopedic trauma. It can decrease mortality, shorten fracture healing time, improve joint function and quality of life, and reduce the incidence of complications.