Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36181320›Full record

ArticleBone & joint open2022

Variation of implant use in A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures : a study from the National Hip Fracture Database of England and Wales.

Thomas E Baldock, Jan R Dixon, Carol Koubaesh, Antony Johansen, William G P Eardley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas E BaldockHealth Education England North East, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9640-0487
Jan R DixonRoyal Victoria Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0445-3026
Carol KoubaeshNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6317-505X
Antony JohansenUniversity Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4726-9106
William G P EardleySouth Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1980-8520
South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversity Hospital of Wales · GBUniversity of Ulster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsPatients with A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures represent a substantial proportion of trauma caseload, and national guidelines recommend that sliding hip screws (SHS) should be used for these injuries. Despite this, intramedullary nails (IMNs) are routinely implanted in many hospitals, at extra cost and with unproven patient outcome benefit. We have used data from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) to examine the use of SHS and IMN for A1 and A2 hip fractures at a national level, and to define the cost implications of management decisions that run counter to national guidelines.

methodsWe used the NHFD to identify all operations for fixation of trochanteric fractures in England and Wales between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021. A uniform price band from each of three hip fracture implant manufacturers was used to set cost implications alongside variation in implant use.

resultsWe identified 18,156 A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures in 162 centres. Of these, 13,483 (74.3%) underwent SHS fixation, 2,352 (13.0%) were managed with short IMN, and 2,321 (12.8%) were managed with long IMN. Total cost of IMN added up to £1.89 million in 2021, and the clinical justification for this is unclear since rates of IMN use varied from 0% to 97% in different centres.

conclusionMost trochanteric hip fractures are managed with SHS, in keeping with national guidelines. There is considerable variance between hospitals for implant choice, despite the lack of evidence for clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of more expensive nailing systems. This suggests either a lack of awareness of national guidelines or a choice not to follow them. We encourage provider units to reassess their practice if outwith the national norm. Funding bodies should examine implant use closely in this population to prevent resource waste at a time of considerable health austerity.Cite this article:

Indexed as

A2 fractureshipHip fracturesImplant choiceIntramedullary nailnailing systemsNational hip fracture databaseNeck of femur fractureRandomized controlled trialsSliding hip screwsliding hip screwstraumatic injurytrochanteric fracturesTrochanteric hip fracturetrochanteric hip fracturesvariance

Identifiers

PMID36181320
PMCPMC9626874
OpenAlexW4298326899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.