Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33590272›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2022

Strategies for the treatment of femoral fractures in severely injured patients: trends in over two decades from the TraumaRegister DGU

Felix M Bläsius, Markus Laubach, Hagen Andruszkow, Philipp Lichte, Hans-Christoph Pape, Rolf Lefering, Klemens Horst, Frank Hildebrand, Trauma Register DGU®

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Clinical and healthcare research.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

9 authors.

Felix M BläsiusDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany. fblaesius@ukaachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7419-8687
Markus LaubachDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Hagen AndruszkowDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Philipp LichteDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Hans-Christoph PapeDepartment of Trauma, Universitaetsspital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Rolf LeferingFaculty of Health, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Klemens HorstDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Frank HildebrandDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Trauma Register DGU®

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTreatment strategies for femoral fracture stabilisation are well known to have a significant impact on the patient's outcome. Therefore, the optimal choices for both the type of initial fracture stabilisation (external fixation/EF, early total care/ETC, conservative treatment/TC) and the best time point for conversion from temporary to definitive fixation are challenging factors. PATIENTS: Patients aged ≥ 16 years with moderate and severe trauma documented in the TraumaRegister DGU

resultsIn total, 13,091 trauma patients were included. EF patients more often sustained high-energy trauma (car: 43.1 vs. 29.5%, p < 0.001), were younger (40.6 vs. 48.1 years, p < 0.001), were more severely injured (ISS 25.4 vs. 19.1 pts., p < 0.001), and had higher sepsis (11.8 vs. 5.4%, p < 0.001) and MOF rates (33.1 vs. 16.0%, p < 0.001) compared to ETC patients. A shift from ETC to EF was observed. The time until conversion decreased for femoral fractures from 9 to 8 days within the observation period. Sepsis incidences decreased in EF (20.3 to 12.3%, p < 0.001) and ETC (9.1-4.8%, p < 0.001) patients.

conclusionsOur results show the changes in the surgical treatment of severely injured patients with femur fractures over a period of almost two decades caused by the introduction of modern surgical strategies (e.g., Safe Definitive Surgery). It remains unclear which subgroups of trauma patients benefit most from these strategies.

Indexed as

Femoral FracturesMultiple TraumaSepsisGermanyHumansInjury Severity ScoreRegistriesRetrospective StudiesTrauma CentersDamage control orthopaedicsDCOEarly total careETCExternal fixationTrauma

Identifiers

PMID33590272
PMCPMC7883956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.