Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35949270›Full record

ArticleOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2022

Tips and tricks to avoid implant failure in proximal femur fractures treated with cephalomedullary nails: a review of the literature.

Joseph L Petfield, Luke E Visscher, Boyko Gueorguiev, Karl Stoffel, Hans-Christoph Pape

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparative evaluation of treatment strategies for femoral metastases: endoprosthesis reconstruction versus intramedullary nailing.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Joseph L PetfieldPenn State Bone and Joint Institute, Hershey, PA, USA.
Luke E VisscherAO Research Institute Davos, Davos.
Boyko GueorguievAO Research Institute Davos, Davos.
Karl StoffelUniversity Hospital Basel, Basel.
Hans-Christoph PapeDepartment of Trauma, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.
AO Foundation · CHPennsylvania State University · USUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To describe the surgical aspects potentially contributing to hardware failure of cephalomedullary nails. Data Sources: A search of the Embase, PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and the Cochrane library for reports of hardware failures after intramedullary fixation of proximal femur fractures. Issues of cut out and cut through phenomena related to technique were excluded. Expert opinion of 3 surgeons, each trained on several fixation systems at Level | trauma centers is reported. Data Extraction: Three authors extracted data using a predesigned form. Implant type, reported failure mechanism, and associated factors with implant failure were recorded as well as potential bias. Results: Of 2182 search results screened, 64 articles were deemed relevant for our research question and were included. The authors identified factors associated with implant failure: preoperative patient and fracture characteristics, intraoperative reduction, implant handling, and postoperative nonunion. Issues were identified as independent modifiable intraoperative risk factors: inadequate fracture reduction, varus position of femoral neck, direct damage of the cephalomedullary nail aperture by eccentric drilling related to guide sleeve handling, and implant design mechanism failures. Conclusions: Multiple factors associated with intraoperative handling can influence the healing of proximal femur fractures. Although many of these have been well described and are taught in fracture courses, surgeons should be aware of subtle intraoperative complications reported in the literature that can weaken implants and add to the likelihood of early failure.

Indexed as

cephalomedullary nailsearly failureintraoperative complicationsproximal femur fractures

Identifiers

PMID35949270
PMCPMC9359031
OpenAlexW4224243925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.