ArticleGeriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation2020
Does Implant Selection Affect the Inpatient Cost of Care for Geriatric Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures?
Article in Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intramedullary Nailing vs Sliding Hip Screw in Trochanteric Fracture Management: The INSITE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- A Prospective, Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the use of the Proximal Femoral Nail - Antirotation and Dynamic Hip Screw for Stable Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures-Stable Trochanteric Fractures Intramedullary versus Extramedullary (STRIVE) Study.Malaysian orthopaedic journal · 2025Article
- Mobility and living status at discharge and after three-months for extramedullary versus intramedullary fixation of AO type 31-A1 trochanteric fractures; an analysis of Dutch hip fracture audit data.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
- Orthopedic Surgery Resident Exposure to Sliding Hip Screw Fixation for Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures: A Multicenter Study.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2025Article
- Can Large Language Models (LLMs) Predict the Appropriate Treatment of Acute Hip Fractures in Older Adults? Comparing Appropriate Use Criteria With Recommendations From ChatGPT.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Name-brand Versus Generic Cephalomedullary Nail Fixation for Intertrochanteric and Subtrochanteric Fractures: A Matched Cohort Study.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
- Utilization Trends, Patient-Demographics, and Comparison of Medical Complications of Sliding Hip Screw or Intramedullary Nail for Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Nationwide Analysis from 2005 to 2014 of the Medicare Population.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2023Article
- A Multi-Disciplinary Review of Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Practical Considerations for Spine Surgery.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Variation of implant use in A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures : a study from the National Hip Fracture Database of England and Wales.Bone & joint open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGeriatric intertrochanteric (IT) femur fractures are a common and costly injury, expected to increase in incidence as the population ages. Understanding cost drivers will be essential for risk adjustments, and the surgeon's choice of implant may be an opportunity to reduce the overall cost of care. This study was purposed to identify the relationship between implant type and inpatient cost of care for isolated geriatric IT fractures.
methodsA retrospective review of IT fractures from 2013-2017 was performed at an academic level I trauma center. Construct type and AO/OTA fracture classifications were obtained radiographically, and patient variables were collected via the electronic medical record (EMR). The total cost of care was obtained via time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). Multivariable linear regression and goodness-of-fit analyses were used to determine correlation between implant costs, inpatient cost of care, construct type, patient characteristics, and injury characteristics.
resultsImplant costs ranged from $765.17 to $5,045.62, averaging $2,699, and were highest among OTA 31-A3 fracture patterns (p < 0.01). Implant cost had a positive linear association with overall inpatient cost of care (p < 0.01), but remained highly variable (r
conclusionThe cost of care for IT fractures is poorly understood and difficult to determine. With alternative payment models on the horizon, implant selection should be utilized as an opportunity to decrease costs and increase the value of care provided to patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.