↓ Skip to main content

The Frank Stinchfield Award

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
The Frank Stinchfield Award
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4868-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

William W Schairer, Joseph M Lane, David A Halsey, Richard Iorio, Douglas E Padgett, Alexander S McLawhorn

Abstract

Hip fractures are a major public health concern. For displaced femoral neck fractures, the needs for medical services during hospitalization and extending beyond hospital discharge after total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be different than the needs after THA performed for osteoarthritis (OA), yet these differences are largely uncharacterized, and the Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups system does not distinguish between THA performed for fracture and OA. (1) What are the differences in in-hospital and 30-day postoperative clinical outcomes for THA performed for femoral neck fracture versus OA? (2) Is a patient's fracture status, that is whether or not a patient has a femoral neck fracture, associated with differences in in-hospital and 30-day postoperative clinical outcomes after THA? The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, which contains outcomes for surgical patients up to 30 days after discharge, was used to identify patients undergoing THA for OA and femoral neck fracture. OA and fracture cohorts were matched one-to-one using propensity scores based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, and medical comorbidities. Propensity scores represented the conditional probabilities for each patient having a femoral neck fracture based on their individual characteristics, excluding their actual fracture status. Outcomes of interest included operative time, length of stay (LOS), complications, transfusion, discharge destination, and readmission. There were 42,692 patients identified (41,739 OA; 953 femoral neck fractures) with 953 patients in each group for the matched analysis. For patients with fracture, operative times were slightly longer (98 versus 92 minutes, p = 0.015), they experienced longer LOS (6 versus 4 days, p < 0.001), and the overall frequency of complications was greater compared with patients with OA (16% versus 6%, p < 0.001). Although the frequency of preoperative transfusions was higher in the fracture group (2.0% versus 0.2%, p = 0.002), the frequency of postoperative transfusion was not different between groups (27% versus 24%, p = 0.157). Having a femoral neck fracture versus OA was strongly associated with any postoperative complication (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-3.8]; p < 0.001), unplanned readmission (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.2; p = 0.049), and discharge to an inpatient facility (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.0; p < 0.001). Compared with THA for OA, THA for femoral neck fracture is associated with greater rates of complications, longer LOS, more likely discharge to continued inpatient care, and higher rates of unplanned readmission. This implies higher resource utilization for patients with a fracture. These differences exist despite matching of other preoperative risk factors. As healthcare reimbursement moves toward bundled payment models, it would seem important to differentiate patients and procedures based on the resource utilization they represent to healthcare systems. These results show different expected resource utilization in these two fundamentally different groups of patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, suggesting a need to modify healthcare policy to maintain access to THA for all patients. Level III, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 10%
Researcher 11 10%
Other 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 34 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 38 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,960,693
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#2,220
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,401
of 424,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#39
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.