Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796346›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Condylocephalic nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures.

M J Parker, H H Handoll, S Bhonsle, W J Gillespie

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Extracts from "clinical evidence": hip fracture.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M J ParkerOrthopaedic Department, Peterborough District Hospital, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK, PE3 6DA. mjparker@globalnet.co.uk
H H Handoll
S Bhonsle
W J Gillespie
Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBTeesside University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCondylocephalic nails are intramedullary nails which are inserted up through the femoral canal from above the knee, for example Ender and Harris nails.

objectivesTo compare condylocephalic nails with alternative implants (extramedullary implants such as fixed nail plates and sliding hip screws, or other intramedullary nails) for the treatment of extracapsular hip fracture in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group trials register, Medline (1983 to August 1999) and reference lists of relevant articles. Date of the most recent search: August 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing condylocephalic nails with other implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were pooled where relevant and possible. Ender nails and Harris nail data were presented separately. Results from fixed nail plates and sliding hip screws were sub-grouped to explore differences in these two implant types. MAIN

resultsEleven trials were included. Ten compared Ender nails with either a fixed nail plate or a sliding hip screw. One compared the Harris condylocephalic nail with a sliding hip screw. The only advantages of condylocephalic nails were a reduced deep wound sepsis rate (0.9% versus 4.2%; odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.56), length of surgery and operative blood loss. However there was an increased risk of re-operation (20.9% versus 5. 5%; odds ratio 3.78, 95% confidence interval 2.67 to 5.36) and later fracture of the femur when compared with extramedullary implants. There was also an increased risk of cut-out of the implant from the femoral head for Ender nails compared with the sliding hip screw, but not for fixed nail plates. Backing out of the nail was a frequent complication (30%) of Ender nails and often resulted in revision surgery. Ender nails also had an increased risk of shortening of the leg and external rotation deformity and potentially a poorer return to previous walking ability. An increase in residual pain resulting from an excess of knee pain was also evident in patients undergoing condylocephalic nailing. There was no apparent difference in mortality between the condylocephalic nail and extramedullary implant groups. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsAny advantages in intra-operative outcomes of condylocephalic nails are outweighed by the increase in fracture healing complications, re-operation rate, residual pain and limb deformity when compared with an extramedullary implant, particularly a sliding hip screw. The use of condylocephalic nails (in particular Ender nails), for trochanteric fracture is no longer appropriate.

Indexed as

Fracture Fixation, InternalFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryOrthopedic Fixation DevicesBone NailsBone ScrewsHip FracturesHumansInternal Fixators

Identifiers

PMID10796346
PMCPMC7061349
OpenAlexW1606874482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.