Ghulam Dastagir Faisal Mohammed, Ayodele Odedara, Muhammad Murtaza Khan, Jebran Amin, Abu Zer Saeed, Zubair Younis, Gopikanthan Manoharan
{"title":"矛盾的指导,分裂的实践:髋部动力螺钉固定中加压螺钉的全国调查。","authors":"Ghulam Dastagir Faisal Mohammed, Ayodele Odedara, Muhammad Murtaza Khan, Jebran Amin, Abu Zer Saeed, Zubair Younis, Gopikanthan Manoharan","doi":"10.1016/j.surge.2026.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The compression screw is an optional ancillary component of the dynamic hip screw construct. Guidance on whether to use it, and whether to retain or remove it, is contradictory between the AO, the manufacturers and the biomechanical literature, and no clinical study has compared the two. The aim was to establish current UK practice, understanding and training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A ten-question electronic survey was distributed through Training Programme Directors in all 23 United Kingdom deaneries and through trainee networks, open from 20 April to 19 July 2025. Users were defined from the direct question on frequency of use. Proportions are reported with Wilson 95% confidence intervals and compared using Fisher's exact test. Free text was coded thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred responded: 42 junior and 41 senior trainees, 17 consultants. Seventy-four per cent (95% CI 65-82) use the compression screw at least occasionally. Of these, 38 (51%) remove it, 22 (30%) leave it in and 14 (19%) decide case by case, without difference by grade (p = 0.43). Ninety identified on-table compression correctly, yet 40% endorsed the belief that a retained screw prevents further compression on mobilisation. Thirty-seven per cent had no teaching; teaching predicted use (p = 0.0008), not understanding (p = 0.61).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no consensus on use of the compression screw and practice does not converge with seniority. Teaching appears to transmit practice rather than mechanism. Explicit teaching, and a comparative study of retention versus removal, are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":49463,"journal":{"name":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contradictory guidance, divided practice: a national survey of the compression screw in dynamic hip screw fixation.\",\"authors\":\"Ghulam Dastagir Faisal Mohammed, Ayodele Odedara, Muhammad Murtaza Khan, Jebran Amin, Abu Zer Saeed, Zubair Younis, Gopikanthan Manoharan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.surge.2026.10.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The compression screw is an optional ancillary component of the dynamic hip screw construct. Guidance on whether to use it, and whether to retain or remove it, is contradictory between the AO, the manufacturers and the biomechanical literature, and no clinical study has compared the two. The aim was to establish current UK practice, understanding and training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A ten-question electronic survey was distributed through Training Programme Directors in all 23 United Kingdom deaneries and through trainee networks, open from 20 April to 19 July 2025. Users were defined from the direct question on frequency of use. Proportions are reported with Wilson 95% confidence intervals and compared using Fisher's exact test. Free text was coded thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred responded: 42 junior and 41 senior trainees, 17 consultants. Seventy-four per cent (95% CI 65-82) use the compression screw at least occasionally. Of these, 38 (51%) remove it, 22 (30%) leave it in and 14 (19%) decide case by case, without difference by grade (p = 0.43). Ninety identified on-table compression correctly, yet 40% endorsed the belief that a retained screw prevents further compression on mobilisation. Thirty-seven per cent had no teaching; teaching predicted use (p = 0.0008), not understanding (p = 0.61).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no consensus on use of the compression screw and practice does not converge with seniority. Teaching appears to transmit practice rather than mechanism. Explicit teaching, and a comparative study of retention versus removal, are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2026.10.005\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2026.10.005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:加压螺钉是髋部动力螺钉结构的可选辅助部件。关于是否使用,是否保留或移除的指导在AO,制造商和生物力学文献之间是矛盾的,并且没有临床研究对两者进行比较。其目的是建立目前英国的实践,理解和培训。方法:在2025年4月20日至7月19日期间,通过英国所有23所学院的培训项目主任和学员网络分发了一份包含10个问题的电子调查。用户是根据使用频率的直接问题来定义的。比例用威尔逊95%置信区间报告,并使用Fisher精确检验进行比较。自由文本是按主题编码的。结果:100人反馈:初级学员42人,高级学员41人,咨询师17人。74% (95% CI 65-82)患者至少偶尔使用加压螺钉。其中,38人(51%)将其删除,22人(30%)保留,14人(19%)逐案决定,没有等级差异(p = 0.43)。90例患者正确识别了表上压缩,但40%的患者认为保留螺钉可防止活动时进一步压缩。37%的学校没有教学;教学预测使用(p = 0.0008),不预测理解(p = 0.61)。结论:临床对加压螺钉的使用并没有统一的意见,实践与资历也不一致。教学似乎传递的是实践而不是机制。明确的教学,以及对保留和删除的比较研究是有必要的。
Contradictory guidance, divided practice: a national survey of the compression screw in dynamic hip screw fixation.
Background: The compression screw is an optional ancillary component of the dynamic hip screw construct. Guidance on whether to use it, and whether to retain or remove it, is contradictory between the AO, the manufacturers and the biomechanical literature, and no clinical study has compared the two. The aim was to establish current UK practice, understanding and training.
Methods: A ten-question electronic survey was distributed through Training Programme Directors in all 23 United Kingdom deaneries and through trainee networks, open from 20 April to 19 July 2025. Users were defined from the direct question on frequency of use. Proportions are reported with Wilson 95% confidence intervals and compared using Fisher's exact test. Free text was coded thematically.
Results: One hundred responded: 42 junior and 41 senior trainees, 17 consultants. Seventy-four per cent (95% CI 65-82) use the compression screw at least occasionally. Of these, 38 (51%) remove it, 22 (30%) leave it in and 14 (19%) decide case by case, without difference by grade (p = 0.43). Ninety identified on-table compression correctly, yet 40% endorsed the belief that a retained screw prevents further compression on mobilisation. Thirty-seven per cent had no teaching; teaching predicted use (p = 0.0008), not understanding (p = 0.61).
Conclusion: There is no consensus on use of the compression screw and practice does not converge with seniority. Teaching appears to transmit practice rather than mechanism. Explicit teaching, and a comparative study of retention versus removal, are warranted.
期刊介绍:
Since its establishment in 2003, The Surgeon has established itself as one of the leading multidisciplinary surgical titles, both in print and online. The Surgeon is published for the worldwide surgical and dental communities. The goal of the Journal is to achieve wider national and international recognition, through a commitment to excellence in original research. In addition, both Colleges see the Journal as an important educational service, and consequently there is a particular focus on post-graduate development. Much of our educational role will continue to be achieved through publishing expanded review articles by leaders in their field.
Articles in related areas to surgery and dentistry, such as healthcare management and education, are also welcomed. We aim to educate, entertain, give insight into new surgical techniques and technology, and provide a forum for debate and discussion.