SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2022
No difference between lag screw and helical blade for cephalomedullary nail cut-out a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of helical blade versus lag screw in intertrochanteric fractures of the elderly treated with proximal femoral nail: A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of radiological outcomes among cephalomedullary nails: helical, screw and winged screw.PeerJ · 2024Trial
- Intramedullary Femoral Nailing-Blade Versus Screw: A Risk Analysis of Implant-Related Complications in Trochanteric Femoral Fractures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Observational
- Review
- Femoral strength after cephalomedullary nail removal can be predicted preoperatively using CT based FE models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- [Standard radiographic images in cephalomedullary nailing fixation for intertrochanteric femoral fractures].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Article
- Design innovation and rationale of the intramedullary implants for treating Intertrochanteric fractures: A review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Article
- Intramedullary Femur Nailing in Intertrochanteric Fractures: Postoperatively Do Helical Blades Migrate More Than Lag Screws? A Randomized Controlled Trial.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Early hip survival after open reduction internal fixation of acetabular fracture.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- Double lag-screw compression for optimal fixation of intertrochanteric fractures with large fragment gap: A technical note.SICOT-J · 2023Article
- Association between Immediate Postoperative Radiographic Findings and Failed Internal Fixation for Trochanteric Fractures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCephalomedullary nail (CMN) cut-out is a severe complication of treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures. This study aimed to identify modifiable risk factors predictive of implant cut-out including: CMN proximal fixation type (lag screw vs. helical blade), tip-apex distance (TAD), reduction quality, nail length, screw location, and surgeon fellowship training.
methodsA systematic review of the published literature was conducted on Pubmed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for English language papers (January 1st, 1985-May 10th, 2020), with 21 studies meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies providing quantitative data comparing factors affecting CMN nail cut-out were included, including fixation type (lag screw vs. helical blade), tip-apex distance (TAD), reduction quality, nail length, and screw location. Twelve studies were included and graded by MINOR and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to identify potential biases. Meta-analysis and pooled analysis were conducted when possible with forest plots to summarize odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsThere was no difference in implant cut-out rate between lag screws (n = 745) versus helical blade (n = 371) (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.25-4.23). Pooled data analysis revealed TAD > 25 mm (n = 310) was associated with higher odds of increased cut-out rate relative to TAD < 25 mm (n = 730) (OR: 3.72; 95% CI: 2.06-6.72).
conclusionOur review suggests that cephalomedullary implant type (lag screw vs. helical blade) is not a risk factor for implant cut-out. Consistent with the previous literature, increased tip-apex distance > 25 mm is a reliable predictor of implant cut-out risk. Suboptimal screw location and poor reduction quality are associated with increased risk of screw cut-out. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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.