Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34351048›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2021

Comparison of Early Clinical Results for Femoral Neck System and Cannulated Screws in the Treatment of Unstable Femoral Neck Fractures.

Xiao-Qiang Zhou, Zhi-Qiang Li, Ren-Jie Xu, Yuan-Shi She, Xiang-Xin Zhang, Guang-Xiang Chen, Xiao Yu

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Development and testing of a prognostic scoring system for screw-positioning related femoral neck fracture failures for younger adults.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiao-Qiang ZhouDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Gusu School, Nanjing Medical University, 26# Daoqian Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, Province, China.
Zhi-Qiang LiDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Gusu School, Nanjing Medical University, 26# Daoqian Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, Province, China.
Ren-Jie XuDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Gusu School, Nanjing Medical University, 26# Daoqian Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, Province, China.
Yuan-Shi SheDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Gusu School, Nanjing Medical University, 26# Daoqian Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, Province, China.
Xiang-Xin ZhangDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Gusu School, Nanjing Medical University, 26# Daoqian Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, Province, China.
Guang-Xiang ChenDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Gusu School, Nanjing Medical University, 26# Daoqian Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, Province, China.
Xiao YuDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Gusu School, Nanjing Medical University, 26# Daoqian Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu, Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9614-7239
Suzhou Municipal Hospital · CNHealth First · US

Funding

Key Medical Research Project of Jiangsu Health Committee K2019010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare early clinical effects of the femoral neck system (FNS) and three cannulated screws for the treatment of patients with unstable femoral neck fractures.

methodsA retrospective analysis with pair matching of 81 patients who received FNS or cannulated screw internal fixation for Pauwels type-3 femoral neck fracture in our hospital from January 2019 to December 2019 was conducted. Patients who received FNS were the test group, and those who received cannulated screws comprised the control group. Matching requirements were as follows: same sex, similar age, and similar body mass index (BMI). A total of 30 pairs were successfully matched at a 1:1 ratio, including 12 males and 18 females. The average age of the patients in the FNS group was 54.53 ± 6.71 years. In the cannulated screw group, the average age of the patients was 53.14 ± 7.19 years. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, hospitalization cost, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, time to walking without crutches, Harris score, femoral head necrosis rate, and complication rate were compared between the groups.

resultsPostoperative re-examination of radiographs showed satisfactory reduction in all patients, and all patients were followed up for 10-22 months. Those in the FNS group had lower postoperative VAS scores, earlier times to walking without crutches, higher Harris scores at the last follow-up, and lower complication rates (P < 0.05). VAS scores were lower in the FNS group (3.13 ± 1.07 scores) than in the cannulated screw group (3.77 ± 1.04 scores) (P = 0.018). Patients in the FNS group (5.23 ± 1.33 months) recovered to walking without crutches earlier than did those in the cannulated screw group (6.03 ± 1.45 months) (P<0.001). In addition, a statistically higher postoperative Harris score was detected in the FNS group (86.16 ± 7.26) than in the cannulated screw group (82.37 ± 7.52) (P = 0.039). Overall, a higher incidence of complications was observed in the cannulated screw group (9/30) than in the FNS group (2/30) (P = 0.042). However, intraoperative blood loss and hospitalization costs were greater in the FNS group (P < 0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was greater in the FNS group (99.73 ± 4.69) than in the cannulated screw group (30.27 ± 9.04) (P<0.001). In addition, patients in the FNS group (46976 ± 2270 ¥) spent more on hospitalization costs than did those in the cannulated screw group (15626 ± 1732 ¥) (P<0.001). No statistically significant difference in operation time, hospital stay, or femoral head necrosis rate was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05).

conclusionFor patients with unstable femoral neck fractures, FNS has better clinical efficacy than cannulated screws, though it is also more expensive.

Indexed as

Bone ScrewsFemaleFemoral Neck FracturesFracture Fixation, InternalHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCannulated screwClinical efficacyFemoral neck fractureFemoral neck systemInternal fixation

Identifiers

PMID34351048
PMCPMC8523763
OpenAlexW3113752452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.