Skip to main content
. 2012 Feb 8;83(1):26–30. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.652887

Table 3.

Fracture type, operation type, and rate of reoperation for the 2,000 patients who were operated before or after implementation of the algorithm

Before algorithm After algorithm
Reop. Reop.
Fracture type rate rate
Type of operation n (%) n (%) p-value
Femoral neck fractures 467 24 482 18 0.02
 Undisplaced 88 17 79 13 0.3
  Parallel implants a 75 74
  Prosthesis 9 5
  Other 4
 Displaced (Age < 70 years) 37 51 61 27 0.5
  Parallel implants a 25 37
  Prosthesis b 8 23
  Other 4 1
 Displaced (Age ≥ 70 years) 329 22 328 13 0.005
  Prosthesis a 288 316
  Femoral head removal c 2 3
  Parallel implants 38 7
  Other 1 2
 Vertical 13 39 14 43 0.7
  DHS (2 holes) a 9 11
  DHS (other types) 1 1
  Parallel implants 3 2
Extracapsular fractures 533 13 518 7 0.002
 Basocervical 22 9 21 14 0.7
  DHS (2 holes) a 13 20
  DHS (other types) 7
  Parallel implants 1
  Prosthesis 2
 Stable trochanteric 211 7 144 4 0.3
  DHS (4 holes) a 204 136
  DHS (other types) 4
  IMHS 3 8
 Unstable trochanteric 300 17 353 8 < 0.001
  IMHS a 112 337
  DHS (4 holes) 156 13
  DHS (other types) 32
  Other implants 3
All hip fractures 1,000 18 1,000 12 < 0.001
Level of surgeon
 Unsupervised junior registrar 192 20 105 11 0.03
 Supervised junior registrar 287 16 398 10 0.02
 Senior registrar or consultant 521 18 497 15 0.08

a Operation type dictated by the algorithm.

b Prosthesis is dictated if not fully reducible on the traction table.

c Femoral head removal is dictated if bedridden.

Rates of reoperation were analyzed using univariate Cox regression analysis.