ArticleCureus2022
Tibial Intramedullary Nailing by Suprapatellar Approach: Is It Quicker and Safer?
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the effectiveness of suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approach in intramedullary nailing for the treatment of tibial fractures.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Article
- Prevalence of Rotational Malalignment After Infrapatellar Versus Suprapatellar Intramedullary Nailing of Tibial Shaft Fractures.JB & JS open accessArticle
- Anterior Knee Pain and Knee Functional Scores Following Common Approaches to Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Systematic Review.JB & JS open accessReview
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 With the increasingly accepted method of suprapatellar tibial nailing for tibial shaft fractures, we aimed to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of infrapatellar (IP) vs suprapatellar (SP) tibial nails. Methods This is a retrospective cohort analysis of 34 SP tibial nails over three years vs 24 IP tibial nails over a similar time frame. We compared total radiation dose (TRD), patient positioning time (PPT), fracture healing and follow up time. Knee pain in the SP group was evaluated utilising the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Results Fifty-eight patients with a mean age of 43 years were included. Mean intraoperative radiation dose for SP nails was 61.78 cGy (range: 11.60-156.01 cGy) vs 121.09 cGy (range: 58.01-18.03 cGy) for IP nails (p < 0.05). Mean PPT for SP nails was 10 minutes vs 18 minutes for IP nails (p < 0.05). All fractures united in the SP group vs one non-union in the IP group. Mean follow up was 5.5 months vs 11 months in the IP and SP groups, respectively. Mean KOOS was 7 (range: 0-22) at six months for the SP group. Conclusion The semi-extended position (SP group) leads to reduced TRD because of ease of imaging. Patients showed improved outcomes with shorter follow up and fracture union in all patients (SP group). The KOOS revealed that SP nail patients had minimal pain and good knee function. This study establishes a management and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) baseline for ongoing evaluation of SP nails.
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.