ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Antegrade versus retrograde nailing of proximal femur fractures: A cortical diameter based study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nailing approach and residual fracture gap: A comparative study of antegrade versus retrograde fixation in distal femoral shaft fractures.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Article
- Short segment coronal plane stability screws in retrograde nailing of proximal femoral shaft fractures: a technical trick and case series.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Retrograde nailing of proximal femoral shaft fractures is controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare patients with proximal femur fractures undergoing antegrade versus retrograde intramedullary nailing (AIMN vs RIMN) and determine the safety and efficacy of RIMN. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on 54 patients undergoing femoral IMN for proximal femoral shaft fractures at an urban level one trauma institution between January 2016 and July 2021.Fracture distance from the lesser trochanter (LT) was recorded and used to calculate the number of cortical diameters (NCD) from the LT. Proximal femur fractures were defined as < 3 NCD. AIMN and RIMN fixation was utilized in 31 (57.4%) and 23 (42.6%) patients, respectively. Outcomes measures included pre-/postoperative true translational and angular displacement (TTD and TAD), operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), union rate, time to union, complications, and reoperations. Results: AIMN and RIMN groups were similar in terms of age, sex, BMI, tobacco use, diabetes, ASA classification >2, AO/OTA classification, preoperative TTD or TAD, open fractures, or ballistic fractures. The AIMN group, had a shorter measured distance from the LT (47.0 vs. 66.1 mm, p = 0.04) but the difference in NCD was not significant (1.4 vs. 2.0, p = 0.07). Among patients with isolated IMN procedures, the RIMN group had shorter operative times (142.3 vs. 178.5 min, p = 0.01) and less EBL (100 vs. 250 mL, p = 0.008). There was no observed intergroup difference in terms of postoperative TTD/TAD, union rate, time to union, complications, or reoperations. Conclusion: RIMN is a viable treatment option for proximal femoral shaft fractures that results in less operative time, less blood loss, and no detectable differences in union, reoperations, or complications. Level of evidence: Level III, Retrospective cohort study.
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.