ArticleInternational orthopaedics2004
Unstable subtrochanteric fractures--gamma nail versus dynamic condylar screw.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures. A comparison of the Gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw: short-term outcome in 58 patients.International orthopaedics · 2007Trial
- Subtrochanteric femoral fractures: A case series of 194 patients treated with long and short intramedullary nails.Orthopedic reviews · 2022Article
- The dynamic condylar screw in the management of subtrochanteric fractures: does judicious use of biological fixation enhance overall results?Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We reviewed the operative treatment of subtrochanteric fractures. Before 1999, 15 fractures were treated with a dynamic condylar screw (DCS) and after 1999, 11 fractures were treated with a gamma nail (GN). The mean age of all patients was 70 (31-92) years, and the mean follow up was 16 (9-30) months for the DCS group and 14 (6-26) months for the GN group. All fractures united. There were no infections or implant cut out. In the DCS group, there was one malunion in varus and one late fracture of the implant. In the GN group, there was one malunion in internal rotation and three intraoperative fractures. Functional evaluation showed no significant differences in pain, range of movement, or walking ability, but recovery was significantly earlier in the GN group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.