Summary Background Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes. Methods For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813. Findings Between March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.63–1.09; p=0.18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1.91, 1.06–3.44; p=0.0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0.82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0.41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0.79). Interpretation In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws. Funding National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians’ Services Incorporated.

No abstract

Background: Assessing residents' understanding and application of the 6 intrinsic CanMEDS roles (communicator, professional, manager, collaborator, health advocate, scholar) is challenging for postgraduate medical educators. We hypothesized that an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) designed to assess multiple intrinsic CanMEDS roles would be sufficiently reliable and valid. Methods:The OSCE comprised 6 10-minute stations, each testing 2 intrinsic roles using case-based scenarios (with or without the use of standardized patients). Residents were evaluated using 5-point scales and an overall performance rating at each station. Concurrent validity was sought by correlation with in-training evaluation reports (ITERs) from the last 12 months and an ordinal ranking created by program directors (PDs).Results: Twenty-five residents from postgraduate years (PGY) 0, 3 and 5 participated. The interstation reliability for total test scores (percent) was 0.87, while reliability for each of the communicator, collaborator, manager and professional roles was greater than 0.8. Total test scores, individual station scores and individual CanMEDS role scores all showed a significant effect by PGY level. Analysis of the PD rankings of intrinsic roles demonstrated a high correlation with the OSCE role scores. A correlation was seen between ITER and OSCE for the communicator role, while the ITER medical expert and total scores highly correlated with the communicator, manager and professional OSCE scores. Conclusion:An OSCE designed to assess the intrinsic CanMEDS roles was sufficiently valid and reliable for regular use in an orthopedic residency program.Contexte : Évaluer la compréhension et l'application des 6 rôles intrinsèques Can-MEDS (communicateur, professionnel, gestionnaire, collaborateur, promoteur de la santé, érudit) chez les résidents pose un défi pour les responsables de la formation médi-cale postdoctorale. Nous avons émis l'hypothèse selon laquelle un examen clinique objectif structuré (ECOS) conçu pour évaluer plusieurs rôles CanMEDS intrinsèques serait suffisamment fiable et valide.Méthodes : L'ECOS comportait 6 stations de 10 minutes, permettant chacune d'évaluer 2 rôles intrinsèques à l'aide de scénarios basés sur des cas (avec ou sans recours à des patients standardisés). Les résidents ont été notés au moyen d'échelles en 5 points et d'une évaluation globale de leur rendement à chacune des stations. La validité convergente a été vérifiée par corrélation avec les rapports d'évaluation en cours de formation (RÉF) des 12 mois précédents et un classement chiffré créé par les directeurs du programme (DP).Résultats: Vingt-cinq résidents des années 0, 3 et 5 y ont participé. La fiabilité interstation pour les scores totaux aux tests (en pourcentage) a été de 0,87, tandis que la fiabilité pour chacun des rôles de communicateur, collaborateur, gestionnaire et professionnel, a été supérieure à 0,8. Les scores totaux aux tests, les scores aux stations individuelles et les scores pour les rôles CanMEDS indivi...

No abstract