Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2021
Traction methods in the retrograde intramedullary nailing of femur shaft fractures: the double reverse traction repositor or manual traction.
Trial report in International orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is the traction table necessary to treat femoral fractures with intramedullary nailing? A meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Equilibrium Mechanics in Fracture Reduction of Tibial Plateau.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Double reverse traction repositor assisted closed reduction and internal fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation for treatment of lateral tibial plateau fractures among the elderly.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Article
- A new surgical strategy for the treatment of tibial pilon fractures with MIPO facilitated by double reverse traction repositor.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this prospective study was to compare the double reverse traction repositor (DRTR) and manual traction in retrograde intramedullary nailing (RE-IMN) for femoral shaft fractures. PATIENTS AND
methodsSeventy-seven patients with femur shaft fractures were randomized to undergo surgery with either DRTR or manual traction (MT) to facilitate RE-IMN between January 2018 and January 2019. Demographics, fracture characteristics, surgical data, post-operative complications, and functional outcomes were assessed. Data from 72 patients completing the final follow-up (12 months) were analysed in this study.
resultsThe average number of intra-operative perspectives in the DRTR group was 27.7, which was significantly reduced compared with that in the MT group (31.3, p < 0.001). Fewer assistants were required in the DRTR group compared with the MT group (1.1 vs 1.9, p < 0.001). Fewer patients with open reduction were discovered in the DRTR group compared with the MT group (2.8 vs 19.4, p=0.024). Demographics, fracture characteristics, other surgical data, and prognostic parameters were comparative between the two groups.
conclusionsThe DRTR can be effectively and safely used to treat femur shaft fractures with RE-IMN. The DRTR achieves similar results as MT and is also superior to MT in terms of intra-operative perspectives, the number of assistants, and the open reduction rate.
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.