Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31486944›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2020

Cephalomedullary nailing versus sliding hip screws for Intertrochanteric and basicervical hip fractures: a propensity-matched study of short-term outcomes in over 17,000 patients.

Jared A Warren, Kavin Sundaram, Robert Hampton, John McLaughlin, Brendan Patterson, Carlos A Higuera, Nicolas S Piuzzi

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jared A WarrenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Orthopaedic and Rheumatology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Kavin SundaramDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Orthopaedic and Rheumatology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Robert HamptonDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Orthopaedic and Rheumatology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
John McLaughlinDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Orthopaedic and Rheumatology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Brendan PattersonDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Orthopaedic and Rheumatology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Carlos A HigueraDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
Nicolas S PiuzziDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Orthopaedic and Rheumatology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A41, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. piuzzin@ccf.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3007-7538
Cleveland Clinic · USCleveland Clinic Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHip fractures are associated with poor mortality and morbidity outcomes. Controversy exists over what the preferred treatment is between sliding hips screws (SHSs) and cephalomedullary nails (CMNs) for stable intertrochanteric (IT) and basicervical (BC) hip fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare early postoperative outcomes and complications in patients treated with SHS to those treated with CMN in IT and BC hip fractures.

methodsWe used the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify IT and BC hip fractures, excluding subtrochanteric hip fractures treated with a SHS and CMN for 2008 to 2016. After propensity score matching, there were 8505 patients in the SHS cohort and 8505 in the CMN cohort. Propensity score-adjusted multivariate regression models assed SHS as an independent risk factor for the following 30-day outcomes: mortality, postoperative major and minor complications, discharge disposition, readmission and reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and operative time.

resultsNo difference in mortality was encountered between SHS and CMN (p = 0.440). Compared to CMN, the SHS cohort had an 11.6% decreased likelihood of a minor complication (p < 0.001); however, no difference was found between CMN and SHS for major complications (p = 0.117). SHS patients were less likely to have transfusion (p < 0.001), DVT (p = 0.007), and MI (0.024). SHS patients were 12.5% more likely to go home (p = 0.002). No association was discovered between being treated with a SHS and reoperation (p = 0.449) and readmission (p = 0.588). SHS patients had almost a quarter of a day longer LOS (p = 0.041). Patients treated with SHS had a statistically significant (p < 0.001), but clinically irrelevant 2-min longer procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Indexed as

Bone NailsAged, 80 and overBlood TransfusionBone ScrewsFemaleFracture Fixation, InternalFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHip FracturesHumansMalePropensity ScoreTreatment OutcomeCephalomedullary nailDischarge dispositionHip fractureLength of stayMortalityPostoperative complicationsReadmissionSliding hip screw

Identifiers

PMID31486944
OpenAlexW2971504455

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.