Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26208608›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2015

Which Fixation Device is Preferred for Surgical Treatment of Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures in the United States? A Survey of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Emily Niu, Arthur Yang, Alex H S Harris, Julius Bishop

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 140 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Biomechanically superior treatments do not translate into improved outcomes in randomized controlled trials.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Outcomes and associated factors after InterTAN nailing of geriatric intertrochanteric fractures.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emily NiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, 450 Broadway Street, M/C 6342, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA. eniu@stanford.edu.
Arthur YangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, 450 Broadway Street, M/C 6342, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA.
Alex H S HarrisDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, 450 Broadway Street, M/C 6342, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA.
Julius BishopDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, 450 Broadway Street, M/C 6342, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA.
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe best treatment for intertrochanteric hip fractures is controversial. The use of cephalomedullary nails has increased, whereas use of sliding hip screws has decreased despite the lack of evidence that cephalomedullary nails are more effective. As current orthopaedic trainees receive less exposure to sliding hip screws, this may continue to perpetuate the preferential use of cephalomedullary nails, with important implications for resident education, evidence-based best practices, and healthcare cost. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) What are the current practice patterns in surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures among orthopaedic surgeons? (2) Do surgical practice patterns differ based on surgeon characteristics, practice setting, and other factors? (3) What is the rationale behind these surgical practice patterns? (4) What postoperative approaches do surgeons use for intertrochanteric fractures?

methodsA web-based survey containing 20 questions was distributed to active members of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Three thousand seven-hundred eighty-six of 10,321 invited surgeons participated in the survey (37%), with a 97% completion rate (3687 of 3784 responded to all questions in the survey). The survey elicited information regarding surgeon demographics, preferred management strategies, and decision-making rationale for intertrochanteric fractures.

resultsSurgeons use cephalomedullary nails most frequently for treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Sixty-eight percent primarily use cephalomedullary nails, whereas only 19% primarily use sliding hip screws, and the remaining 13% use cephalomedullary nails and sliding hip screws with equal frequency. The cephalomedullary nail was the dominant approach regardless of experience level or practice setting. Surgeons who practiced in a nonacademic setting (71% versus 58%; p < 0.001), did not supervise residents (71% versus 61%; p < 0.001), or treated more than five intertrochanteric fractures a month (78% versus 67%; p < 0.001) were more likely to use primarily cephalomedullary nails. Of the surgeons who used only cephalomedullary nails, ease of surgical technique (58%) was cited as the primary reason, whereas surgeons who used only sliding hip screws cite familiarity (44%) and improved outcomes (37%) as their primary reasons. Of those who use only short cephalomedullary nails, ease of technique (59%) was most frequently cited. Postoperatively, 67% allow the patient to bear weight as tolerated. Nearly all respondents (99.5%) use postoperative chemical thromboprophylaxis.

conclusionsDespite that either sliding hip screw or cephalomedullary nail fixation are associated with equivalent outcomes for most intertrochanteric femur fractures, the cephalomedullary nail has emerged as the preferred construct, with the majority of surgeons believing that a cephalomedullary nail is easier to use, associated with improved outcomes, or is biomechanically superior to a sliding hip screw. The difference between what is evidence-based and what is done in clinical practice may be attributed to several factors, including financial considerations, educational experience, or inability of our current outcomes measures to reflect the experiences of surgeons. The educators, researchers, and policymakers among us must work harder to better define the roles of sliding hip screws and cephalomedullary nails and ensure that the increasing population with hip fractures receives high-quality and economically responsible care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBone NailsBone ScrewsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFracture Fixation, InternalFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHealth Care SurveysHip FracturesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

PMID26208608
PMCPMC4586189
OpenAlexW1892224229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.