Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33063490›Full record

ArticleZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery2020

[Analysis of effectiveness of greater trochanteric osteotomy approach and K-L posterior approach in patients with type

Hanwen Zhang, Jianhua Ge, Xihai Zhang, Junwu Ye, Shi Shen, Naiqiang Zhuo, Yunkang Yang, Guan Wang, Yang Li, Xiaobo Lu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hanwen ZhangDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou Sichuan, 646000, P.R.China.
Jianhua GeDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou Sichuan, 646000, P.R.China.
Xihai ZhangDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou Sichuan, 646000, P.R.China.
Junwu YeDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou Sichuan, 646000, P.R.China.
Shi ShenDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou Sichuan, 646000, P.R.China.
Naiqiang ZhuoDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou Sichuan, 646000, P.R.China.
Yunkang YangDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou Sichuan, 646000, P.R.China.
Guan WangDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou Sichuan, 646000, P.R.China.
Yang LiDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou Sichuan, 646000, P.R.China.
Xiaobo LuDepartment of Bone and Joint Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou Sichuan, 646000, P.R.China.
Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of two surgical approaches in the treatment of type Ⅳ Pipkin fracture.

methodsThe clinical data of 15 patients with type Ⅳ Pipkin fracture treated surgically between July 2013 and June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. According to different surgical approaches, they were divided into group A (8 cases, using K-L posterior approach) and group B (7 cases, using greater trochanter osteotomy approach). There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, and interval from injury to operation between the two groups (

resultsAll the 15 patients were followed up 1-5 years, with an average of 2.5 years. There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups (

conclusionK-L posterior approach is more convenient in the fracture treatment during operation, but it has greater trauma, greater vascular damage, and more blood loss. The greater trochanter osteotomy approach can better protect the blood supply of femoral head, shorten the operation time, reduce intraoperative blood loss, and reduce postoperative complications. It is an ideal way in the surgical treatment of type Ⅳ Pipkin fracture.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesFemurFracture Fixation, InternalHumansOsteotomyRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomegreater trochanteric osteotomy approachK-L posterior approachPipkin fracture

Identifiers

PMID33063490
PMCPMC8171889
OpenAlexW3093360281

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.