ArticleSICOT-J2022
Proximal femur anatomy-implant geometry discrepancies.
Article in SICOT-J, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Femoral Neck-Shaft Offset: A Key Element in the Reconstruction of Intertrochanteric Fracture.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Offset nail fixation for intertrochanteric fractures improves reduction and lag screw position.PloS one · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDue to ongoing concern about femur anatomy-implant mismatches, this cross-sectional study aimed to create a geometric femur profile and used it to identify and quantify possible mismatches between femur anatomy and cephalomedullary nail dimensions. The work further aimed to assess whether patient demographics affect anatomy-implant coherence.
methodsOne hundred skeletally mature complete femur computer tomography (CT) scans were collected and exported to software enabling landmark placement and measures with multiplanar reconstruction techniques.
resultsClinically relevant anatomy-implant discrepancies included the femur neck and shaft axis offset 6.1 ± 1.7 mm (95% CI [5.7-6.4]), femur radius of curvature 1.2 ± 0.3 m (95% CI [1.1-1.2]), femur anteversion 18.8 ± 9.2 (95% CI [16.9-20.6]). The implants reviewed in this study did not compensate for the femur neck and shaft axis offset and had a larger radius of curvature than the studied population. Clinically significant demographic geometry differences were not identified.
conclusionThere were discrepancies between femur anatomy and cephalomedullary nail implant design; however, no clinically significant femur feature inconsistency was identified among the demographic subgroups. Due to the identified anatomy-implant discrepancies, including the femur neck and shaft axis offset, we suggest that these measurements be considered for future implant design and surgical technique.
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.