ReviewFuture science OA2020
Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes in intertrochanteric fractures treated with InterTAN nail against conventional cephalomedullary nails: a systematic review.
Review in Future science OA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic evaluation of the biomechanical characteristics of PFNA, PFBN, and InterTan fixation for intertrochanteric fractures under gradient variations of proximal femoral lateral wall thickness and delineation of optimal fixation domains.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Prospective Analysis of Asian Type 2 Integrated Lag Screws (Hip Fracture Nail) in Patients with Intertrochanteric Fractures.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Factors Influencing Perioperative Occult Blood Loss in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients: A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2024Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of a modified intramedullary nail for the treatment of unstable femoral trochanteric fractures.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Key factors for increased tip-apex distance when treating intertrochanteric fractures with InterTAN nails.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of a new intramedullary nail compared with proximal femoral nail antirotation and InterTAN for the management of femoral intertrochanteric fractures.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Perioperative peri-implant fracture after osteosynthesis for geriatric femoral pertrochanteric fracture with the linear compression integrated screw intramedullary nail system (INTERTAN™): a retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Study protocol: biomechanical testing, finite element analysis and prospective, randomized, clinical study of single screw cephalomedullary nailing versus integrated dual interlocking screw fixation for unstable (31A2Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Treatment of Trochanteric Hip Fractures with Cephalomedullary Nails: Single Head Screw vs. Dual Integrated Compression Screw Systems.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- A comparison of functional and radiological outcome of combine compression antegrade intertrochanteric nail (InterTan) and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation II (PFNA-II) in elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intertrochanteric fractures, accountable for 50% of hip fractures, can be fixed with cephalomedullary devices such as Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA™), Gamma3 nailing system and TRIGEN™ InterTAN™ nail (IT). IT uniquely uses two cephalocervical screws that allow for linear compression and provide additional resistance to femoral head rotation. A literature review assessing clinical outcomes of these devices was conducted, with 14 studies enrolling 3104 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. PFNA and Gamma3 had better intraoperative outcomes compared with IT; however, IT had superior implant-related outcomes of cut-out and screw migration. No difference was found between IT and PFNA or Gamma3 in Harris Hip Scores, time to union, malunion and nonunion. Further long-term studies are needed to evaluate clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of cephalomedullary devices.
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.