ArticleDer Orthopade2017
[Complications and costs in primary knee replacement surgery in an endoprosthetics centre : Influence of state of training].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association of resident training with complication risk in total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Pooled it
- [Patient safety during endoprosthetic training : Does the training of surgeons in primary hip arthroplasty at certified endoprosthesis centres lead to increased complications?]Der Orthopade · 2022Article
- The impact of intensive laparoscopic training course with structured assessment and immediate feedback on residents' operative performance in animal lab.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis work examines the hypothesis that in endoprosthesis implantation there are differences between experienced primary and senior caregivers (S-Op) and less experienced follow-up assistants (T-Op) with respect to process-relevant parameters. The main hypothesis is that compared to S‑Op, T‑Op cause significantly longer surgery times and thus additional operating theatre costs. As sub-hypotheses, differences in various perioperative (p-o) parameters between T‑Op and S‑Op were examined. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe status of the operator (senior and/or senior main operator [S-Op]) and/or postoperative CRP, perioperative blood loss, the amount of transfused erythrocyte concentrates, patient age, gender, ASA risk classification (American Society of Anesthesiologists), duration of surgery and blood transfusion, duration of inpatient stay, as well as the rates of early revision surgery and complications were recorded. A comparison of patients who had been operated by an S‑Op and those who had been operated by a T‑Op was made for all parameters.
resultsSignificant differences were found with respect to the duration of surgery, the duration of the hospital stay, and CRP on the third p‑o day. The T‑Op required an average of 11 min more than the S‑Op. CRP was significantly higher in the T‑Op group only on the third p‑o day, by 18 mg/l. In contrast, in the T‑Op group, a blood loss of 181 ml was lower than in the S‑Op group. This corresponded to a reduction of 0.26 transfused erythrocyte concentrates. There were no significant differences in complication rates between S‑Op and T‑Op. DISCUSSION: In the setting of a certified endoprosthetics centre, the comparison of T‑Op with S‑Op showed that the use of the former with at a non-increased complication rate led to a significant extension of the operating time. This leads to additional training costs in the amount of an estimated 3% of the current DRG remuneration. These additional costs are not represented adequately in the current remuneration system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27826627What 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.