ArticleInternational orthopaedics2015
Should hip fractures be operated upon only by specialist hip unit surgeons in order to lower rates of surgical site infection?
Article in International orthopaedics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perioperative Contamination of Orthopaedic Polyethylene Implants, Targeting Devices and Arthroscopes. Experts' Decision Tree and Literature Review.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2019Review
- Pre-fracture quality of life predicts 1-year survival in elderly patients with hip fracture-development of a new scoring system.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2016Article
- Irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic infections of the hip and factors determining outcome.International orthopaedics · 2015Article
- Reply to comments by Li et al.: "Do the specialist hip unit surgeons have no significant influence on reducing rates of surgical site infection?".International orthopaedics · 2015Article
- Do specialist hip unit surgeons have any significant influence on reducing rates of surgical site infection?International orthopaedics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of hip fractures treated by orthopaedic surgeons, performed by specialist vs. non-specialist surgeons. The rate of surgical site infection (SSI) obtained is taken as the main variable.
methodsThis was a prospective controlled cohort study of 814 patients presenting with hip fractures, operated on by a group of orthopaedic surgeons within the same hospital department. Patients were classified according to whether the surgeons belonged to a specialist hip unit (group A = 212 cases) or not (group B = 602 cases).
resultsMultivariate logistic regression showed that there was no relation between gender, SSI, Charlson's index, preoperative period, surgical technique or study groups (A or B). Only age was a determinant factor (rank-sum test p = 0.03; OR 95% CI = 1.07, p = 0.005).
conclusionsSince there were no differences in the SSI outcome between surgeons working in a specialist hip unit and the general orthopaedic surgeons, delaying operative treatment for hip fractures to enable treatment in such a unit or creating a new unit of this type is not necessary. In this respect, the only significant variable is the patient's age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25280863What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.