ArticleMedical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)2014
Proximal femoral nail antirotation in treatment of fractures of proximal femur.
Article in Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- The Functional Outcome of Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation-2 (PFNA-2) in Peritrochanteric Fractures of the Femur.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the quadrants of femoral neck-head in the cephalomedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fractures with a helical blade: Is inferior posterior quadrant also safe? A clinical study.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2021Article
- Femoral trochanteric fracture: PFNA spiral blade placement with the aid of an angler.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- Comparison of radiological and functional outcome of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures treated using PFN and PFNA-2 in patients with osteoporosis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2019Article
- Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fractures: Case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2017Article
- The visible and hidden blood loss of Asia proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and dynamic hip screw in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of elderly high- risk patients: a retrospective comparative study with a minimum 3 years of follow-up.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Article
- A Study of Inflammatory/Necrosis Biomarkers in the Fracture of the Femur Treated with Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation.Mediators of inflammation · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFractures of the proximal femur and hip are relatively common injuries in adults and common source of morbidity and mortality among the elderly. Many methods have been recommended for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe retrospective analyzed all the patients with fractures of the hip treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) at the Clinic of Orthopedic and Traumatology, University Clinical Centre Tuzla from the first of January 2012 to 31 December 2012 years. The study included 63 patients averaged 73.6±11.9 years (range, 29 to 88 years). Fracture type was classified as intertrochanteric (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen classification 31.A.1, A.2 and A.3) and subtrochanteric fractures (Seinsheimer classification). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The ratio between the genders female-male was 1.6:1. There was statistically significant difference prevalence of female compared to male patients (p=0.012). There were 31 left and 32 right hip fractured. Low energy trauma was the cause of fractures in 57(90.5%) patients. Averaged waiting time for hospitalization was 3.2±7.5 days (range, 0 to 32 days). 44 patients were admitted the same day upon injuring. The average waiting time for the treatment was 3.6±5.7 days. The ratio between with or without co-existent disease was 4.7:1. During the three months postoperatively with ASA score 3 and 4 six patients died. There were no significant differences in deaths from ASA score 1 and 2 (p=0.52). Reoperation for the treatment of implant or fracture-related complications was required in three (4.7%) patients (infection, reimplantation and extraction). Three patient developed deep vein thrombosis. Statistically significant difference was found in the deaths in the first three months compared to the next three months (p=0.02). We found statistically significant difference between pre-injury and postoperative mobility score (p=0.0001).
conclusionPFNA is an excellent device for osteosynthesis as it can be easily inserted. Moreover, it provides stable fixation, which allows early full weightbearing mobilization of the patient.
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.