ArticleCurrent orthopaedic practice
Cephalomedullary nail versus sliding hip screw for fixation of AO 31 A1/2 intertrochanteric femoral fracture: a 12-year comparison of failure, complications, and mortality.
Article in Current orthopaedic practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-centre results of a randomised controlled trial comparing the Gamma3 nail and a sliding hip screw to treat AO type 31-A1 and 31-A2 trochanteric fractures.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Trial
- The new trochanteric nail TFN-A has a higher complication rate in the treatment of proximal femoral fractures than the predecessor model PFN-A.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- What is the Reason for the Trend Shift from Dynamic Hip Screw to Cephalomedullary Nailing for the Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures? A Comprehensive Retrospective Study in a Single Tertiary Referral Hospital.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparing Intramedullary Nails versus Dynamic Hip Screws in the Treatment of Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures on Post-operative Rehabilitation Outcomes - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Review
- Comparison of Outcomes of Long Versus Short Cephalomedullary Nails for the Fixation of Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 14,547 Patients.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2023Review
- Morbidity and Mortality Analysis in the Treatment of Intertrochanteric Hip Fracture with Two Fixation Systems: Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) or Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advance (TFNA).Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Case report: unique failure of a Synthes TFNA fenestrated lag screw in a peritrochanteric nonunion.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2022Article
- Bipolar hemiarthroplasty in unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. The predictive value of the Charlson Comorbidity Index in 1-year mortality.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2022Article
- Osteoarthritis is associated with increased failure of proximal femoral fracture fixation.International orthopaedics · 2019Observational
- Treatment With Helical Blade Cephalomedullary Nail for Two-Part Basicervical Proximal Femoral Fracture in Elderly Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the United States intertrochanteric and pertrochanteric fractures occur at a rate of more than 150,000 cases annually. Current standard of care for these fractures includes fixation with either a cephalomedullary nail (CMN) or a sliding hip screw (SHS). The purpose of this study was to compare failure and medical complications of intertrochanteric femoral fractures repaired by CMN or SHS.
methodsThis study is a retrospective cohort study that included 249 patients with AO/OTA 31 A1.1-3, 31 A2.1-3 nonpathological fractures of the femur, of which 137 received CMN and 112 received SHS. Analysis was stratified by fracture type as stable (AO 31A1.1-2.1) or unstable (AO 31A2.2-3).
resultsThe tip-apex distance in stable fractures fixed with CMN was 17.3 ± 5.9 compared to 26.2 ± 7.9 in the stable SHS group (p<0.001) while it was 19.0 ± 5.3 in the unstable CMN group compared to 24.0 ± 6.7 in the unstable SHS patients (
conclusionsThere were no significant differences in failure or complication rates when comparing the CMN to the SHS in stable intertrochanteric fractures. CMN demonstrated significantly reduced failure and collapse rates in unstable intertrochanteric fractures when compared to SHS; however, this study had a relatively small sample size of unstable fractures and all results must be interpreted within this context.
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.