Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

General Orthopaedics

Can a urine dipstick test be used to assess smoking status in patients undergoing planned orthopaedic surgery?

a prospective cohort study



Download PDF

Abstract

Aims

Smoking is associated with post-operative complications but smokers often under-report the amount they smoke. Our objective was to determine whether a urine dipstick test could be used as a substitute for quantitative cotinine assays to determine smoking status in patients.

Patients and Methods

Between September 2013 and July 2014 we conducted a prospective cohort study in which 127 consecutive patients undergoing a planned foot and ankle arthrodesis or osteotomy were included. Patients self-reported their smoking status and were classified as: ‘never smoked’ (61 patients), ‘ex-smoker’ (46 patients), or ‘current smoker’ (20 patients). Urine samples were analysed with cotinine assays and cotinine dipstick tests.

Results

There was a high degree of concordance between dipstick and assay results (Kappa coefficient = 0.842, p < 0.001). Compared with the quantitative assay, the dipstick had a sensitivity of 88.9% and a specificity of 97.3%. Patients claiming to have stopped smoking just before surgery had the highest rate of disagreement between reported smoking status and urine testing.

Conclusion

Urine cotinine dipstick testing is cheap, fast, reliable, and easy to use. It may be used in place of a quantitative assay as a screening tool for detecting patients who may be smoking. A positive test may be used as a trigger for further assessment and counselling.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1418–24.


Correspondence should be sent to K. Malhotra; email:

For access options please click here