ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
The clinical efficacy and safety of double reverse traction repositor and traction table in the reduction of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Double Reverse Traction-Assisted Versus Traditional Freehand Closed Reduction With Hexapod External Fixator in Treating Open Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Equilibrium Mechanics in Fracture Reduction of Tibial Plateau.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, we found that double reverse traction repositor (DRTR) is a treatment with operation convenience and fast in our clinical work. However, the clinical efficacy and safety of DRTR in the reduction of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients remain unknown. Therefore, the study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of DRTR and traction table (TT) in the reduction of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Methods: From October 2018 to December 2020, the elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures were reviewed. 22 patients treated with TT and 20 patients treated with DRTR met the inclusion criteria of this study, and baseline clinical characteristics were recorded. The reduction time, operation time, incision length and intraoperative blood loss were reviewed. The safety outcome was assessed by postoperative complications, and the efficacy outcomes were evaluated by the fracture healing time based on the radiographs conducted at each follow-up (1, 3, 6, 12 months after surgery) and hip function (hip flexion, Harris Hip Score) at the final follow-up (12 months after surgery). Results: There were no significant differences in terms of demographics and fracture characteristics of cases enrolled. In DRTR group, the average intraoperative reduction time [(34.8±7.6) min] and the average operation time [(87.1±12.2) min] were superior to those [(56.6±9.3); (123.1±15.0) min] in TT group (P<0.0001). However, there were no statistical significance in terms of the average incision lengths [(6.4±0.9) Conclusions: Minimally invasive reduction with DRTR in unstable intertrochanteric fractures could effectively shorten the intraoperative reduction time and operation time in this study. Therefore, minimally invasive reduction with DRTR might be a good choice for intertrochanteric reduction of unstable intertrochanteric fractures.
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.