ArticleOrthopedic reviews2025
What is the ideal orthopaedic call plan for a level one trauma center?
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Level I trauma centers employ various orthopaedic call strategies based on resources and surgeon subspeciality availability. Objective: We hypothesize when surgeons fellowship trained in trauma are solely on call that patient outcomes will be improved compared to a combined plan. Methods: Retrospective cohort study from two 24-month time periods at an academic level one trauma center. The first cohort consisted of only trauma surgeons taking call. The second cohort consisted of a combination of trauma and other subspecialities taking call. The primary outcome analyzed was time from admission to operating room for hip, femoral shaft, distal femur, tibia shaft, pelvic ring and acetabulum fractures. Secondary outcomes analyzed included length of stay, 90 day incidence of reoperation, mortality, VTE and readmission. Results: Eight hundred and fifty seven patients in the trauma cohort and 992 patients in the combined cohort met the inclusion criteria. The time from admission to index surgical procedure was significantly shorter in the trauma cohort (1.7 vs 2.4). Length of stay (8.95 vs 11 days) and 90 day mortality (1.8% vs 3.8%) was improved in the trauma cohort. There was no difference in 90 day rate of VTE, readmission or reoperation. Length of stay and time to OR in pelvic ring injuries and acetabulum fractures were doubled compared to the hybrid group. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that when trauma fellowship trained surgeons are the only ones taking call patients have a shorter time from admission to index surgical procedure, length of stay and lower mortality rate.
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.