{rfName}
Gi

Indexed in

License and use

Citations

78

Altmetrics

Analysis of institutional authors

Cordero-Ampuero J.Author
Share
Publications
>
Other

Girdlestone procedure: When and why

Publicated to:Hip International. 22 (SUPPL.8): - 2012-01-01 22(SUPPL.8), DOI: 10.5301/HIP.2012.9568

Authors: Cordero-Ampuero J

Affiliations

Hospital Universitario de la Princesa - Author

Abstract

Girdlestone is one of the options for treating an infected hip arthroplasty (along with isolated antibiotics, debridement, and one or two-stage exchange). The choice must be based on a list of previous considerations. Results of girdlestone: Major differences among different series are reported in literature: from 13% to 83% of patients are satisfied with the result. Healing of infection is attained in 80% to 100% of patients, but figures are worse in special subsets (rheumatoid arthritis, enterococcal and methicillin-resistant infections, or when cement is retained). Pain is reported as severe in 16% to 33% of patients, moderate in 24% to 53% and mild in 76%, while only some authors refer to "satisfactory pain relief". Up to 45% of geriatric patients are unable to walk and only 29% walk independently. The literature reports Harris Hip scores from 25 to 64. Indications for girdlestone: Absolute indications: non-ambulatory patients because of other problems or diseases, and impossible reimplantation (2nd-stage surgery) (unacceptable anaesthetic or surgical risk, technical difficulties, patient rejection). Relative indications: Dementia (risk of dislocation vs. severely reduced walking ability), immunocompromise (up to what degree of immune impairment do we accept to take the risk?), intravenous drug abuse (how can you prove it?). © 2012 Wichtig Editore.

Keywords
Functional resultsGirdlestoneInfected hip

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from the Field Citation Ratio (FCR) of the Dimensions source, it yields a value of: 8.83, which indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: Dimensions May 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-05-11, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 25
  • Scopus: 36
  • Europe PMC: 17
  • OpenCitations: 40
Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-05-11:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 99.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 99 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 10.5.
  • The number of mentions on the social network X (formerly Twitter): 2 (Altmetric).
Leadership analysis of institutional authors

There is a significant leadership presence as some of the institution’s authors appear as the first or last signer, detailed as follows: First Author (CORDERO AMPUERO, JOSE) and Last Author (CORDERO AMPUERO, JOSE).