Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35842668›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2022

In reply to the letter to the editor regarding "Comparison of a twin interlocking derotation and compression screw cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) with a single screw derotation cephalomedullary nail (proximal femoral nail antirotation): a systematic review and meta-analysis for intertrochanteric fractures".

Leo Nherera, Paul Trueman, Alan Horner, Tracy Watson, Alan J Johnstone

Open access · goldAbstract readLetterMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Leo NhereraSmith + Nephew Advanced Wound Management, Hull, UK. leo.nherera@smith-nephew.com.
Paul TruemanSmith + Nephew Advanced Wound Management, Hull, UK.
Alan HornerSmith + Nephew Advanced Wound Management, Hull, UK.
Tracy WatsonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Alan J JohnstoneOrthopaedic Trauma Unit, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Smith & Nephew (United Kingdom) · GBAberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBSaint Louis University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntertrochanteric hip fractures are common and devastating injuries, especially for the elderly. Surgical treatment is the optimal strategy for managing intertrochanteric fractures as it allows early rehabilitation and functional recovery. The relative effects of internal fixation strategies for intertrochanteric fracture after operation remain limited to relatively small studies which create uncertainty in attempts to establish evidence-based best practice.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to assess the clinical effectiveness of two commonly used intramedullary devices: a twin-screw integrated cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) versus a single-screw cephalomedullary nail (proximal femoral nail antirotation) in patients with intertrochanteric fractures. The following outcomes were considered: revisions, implant-related failures, non-unions, pain, Harris hip score and intra-operative outcomes. Odds ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals in brackets are reported.

resultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria: two randomised controlled trials and four observational studies enrolling 970 patients with a mean age of 77 years and 64% of patients being female. There was a statistically significant difference (p value < 0.05) for revisions OR 0.27 (0.13-0.56), implant-related failures OR 0.16 (0.09-0.27) and proportion of patients complaining of pain OR 0.50 (0.34-0.74). There was no difference in non-unions and Harris hip score (p value > 0.05). There was a significant difference in blood loss and fluoroscopy usage in favour of PFNA, while no difference in operating times was observed between the two devices.

conclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that a twin-screw integrated cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) is clinically more effective when compared to a single-screw cephalomedullary nail proximal femoral nail antirotation resulting in fewer complications, fewer revisions and fewer patients complaining of pain. No difference has been established regarding non-unions and Harris hip score. Intra-operative outcomes favour PFNA with less blood loss and fluoroscopy usage. Further studies are warranted to explore the cost-effectiveness of these and other implants in managing patients with intertrochanteric fractures.

Indexed as

Fracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHip FracturesAgedBone NailsBone ScrewsFemaleHumansMalePainTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35842668
PMCPMC9288033
OpenAlexW4285587533

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.