ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2020
Does using different entrance points for intramedullary nails affect clinical outcomes for femoral shaft fractures? A retrospective clinical comparative study.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe examined the clinical and radiological outcomes of femoral shaft fractures treated with two different intramedullary nail designs using either greater trochanteric or trochanteric fossa entrance.
methodsThe medical records of patients undergoing operations for a shaft fracture either with a nail with trochanteric entrance or trochanteric fossa entrance were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: having the necessary medical records including radiographic images and follow-up data, at least 12 months of follow-up, skeletal maturity (≥16 years of age) not having osteoporosis (≤60 years of age). Exclusion criteria were: pathological fractures, fragility fractures, fractures that extend to hip or knee joint capsule, lack of enough medical data, less than 12 months of follow up, and patients yet to reach skeletal maturity.
resultsA total of 65 patients (67 femur fractures) were treated with intramedullary nails using a trochanteric fossa entrance (TFE) and 21 patients (23 femur fractures) were treated with nails using a greater trochanteric entrance (GTE). No statistically significant differences were evident between groups in terms of union time, blood loss, need for implant removal, implant failure, or revision operation. However, the duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter in the GTE nail group and the need for open reduction of the fracture was less common in these patients. Although there were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications and union among isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures, malreduction and iatrogenic fractures were more common with the use of GTE nails for treatment of supra-isthmal fractures.
conclusionUse of intramedullary nails via both GTE and TFE were safe and efficient for the treatment of isthmal and infra-isthmal fractures. However, varus malalignments associated with iatrogenic fractures were more common with trochanteric entrance nails. Together, our results show that the use of nails via TFE may represent a safer option for surgical treatment of supra-isthmal fractures.
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.