Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2011
Prospective randomised study comparing screw versus helical blade in the treatment of low-energy trochanteric fractures.
Trial report in International orthopaedics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- What patient reported outcome measures are used in clinical trials in hip fracture? A systematic mapping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Cephalomedullary Nails with Sliding Hip Screws in Surgical Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- No difference between lag screw and helical blade for cephalomedullary nail cut-out a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022Pooled it
- Surgical interventions for treating extracapsular hip fractures in older adults: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Cephalomedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in older adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of helical blade versus lag screw in intertrochanteric fractures of the elderly treated with proximal femoral nail: A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Intramedullary versus extramedullary internal fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fracture, a meta-analysis.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2018Pooled it
- Is helical blade superior to screw design in terms of cut-out rate for elderly trochanteric fractures? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2014Pooled it
- Intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Early Postoperative Effects of Mechanical Versus Manual Femoral Canal Opening During Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation Fixation of Pertrochanteric Femoral Fractures.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Trial
- Controversies in the Treatment Strategies of Intertrochanteric Fractures: A Scoping Review and Discussion of a Literature-Based Algorithm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparative Study between Proximal Femoral Nail Anti Rotation and Proximal Femoral Nail Anti Rotation Asian to Assessing Functional Outcome.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2024Article
- Augmented versus non-augmented Trochanteric Fixation Nail-Advanced (TFNA) nails for treating trochanteric fractures in patients over sixty-five years of age.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Intramedullary Femur Nailing in Intertrochanteric Fractures: Postoperatively Do Helical Blades Migrate More Than Lag Screws? A Randomized Controlled Trial.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Intertrochanteric Femoral Fractures: A Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Results with the Proximal Femoral Intramedullary Nail (PROFIN), the Anti-Rotation Proximal Femoral Nail (A-PFN), and the InterTAN Nail.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- The Effect of Bone Quality on Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures with Helical Blade Versus Lag Screw Fixation in Cephalomedulary Nails.Kansas journal of medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Use of a Trochanteric Fixation Nail-Advanced (TFNA) with cement augmentation for treatment of trochanteric fractures in patients greater than sixty five years of age.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Cephalomedullary helical blade is independently associated with less collapse in intertrochanteric femur fractures than lag screws.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2021Article
- Early Experience with the Trochanteric Fixation Nail-Advanced (TFN-A): A Descriptive Review of Thirty-Four Cases from a Single Center.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare femoral head placement, rates of reoperation and cephalic implant cut-out of a screw versus a blade for patients over age 60 with low energy trochanteric fractures (AO/OTA 31-A1, A2, and A3) treated either with sliding hip screw or cephalomedullary nail.
methodsAfter surgeon selection of either hip screw or nail, hip screw patients were randomised to either a DHS (dynamic hip system screw) or DHS blade (dynamic hip system blade), while nail patients were randomised to either a Gamma3 Trochanteric Nail or a PFNA (proximal femoral nail antirotation). This resulted in a screw group (DHS and Gamma nail), and a blade group (DHS blade and PFNA). Outcome measures included tip-apex distance and zone location of the cephalic implant, as well as reoperation and implant cut-out within the first postoperative year.
resultsA total of 335 patients were randomised, 172 to a screw and 163 to a blade. There was no significant difference concerning mean tip-apex distance, percentage of patients with a tip-apex distance >25 mm, and patients with a centre-centre position of the cephalic implant. There were 137 patients in the screw group and 132 in the blade group available for follow-up. They did not differ regarding rates of reoperation or cut-out (screw group = 2.9%; blade group = 1.5%).
conclusionsBoth a screw and a blade performed equally well in terms of implant placement in the femoral head and outcome.
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.