ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHip-preserving revision in patients with failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fracture is still a major challenge. Whether the medial support reconstruction could benefit the patients and improve the success rate of hip-preserving revision is still controversial. Hence, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance and prognosis of medial support reconstruction during the hip-preserving revision of failed femoral trochanteric fracture treatment.
methodsPatients with failed femoral trochanteric fractures treatments addressed by hip-preserving revision at our hospital from January 2014 to December 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. 31 patients were included and divided into a medial support group (n = 16) and a non-medial support group (n = 15). The fracture healing rate was the primary measurement. In addition, the differences in Oxford Hip Score (OHS), quality of life, surgical trauma, and complications were also evaluated.
resultsThe fracture healing rate (100%, 16/16 vs. 66.67%, 10/15), the OHS (42.06 ± 4.12 vs. 30.93 ± 11.56, M ± SD), and the mental component score of the 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) (54.48 ± 5.38 vs. 47.90 ± 3.47, M ± SD), were significantly better and the incidence of complications [0(0/16) vs. 40%(6/15)] was significantly lower in the medial support group than the non-medial support group (p < 0.05). No significant differences in the physical component score of the SF-12, surgical trauma and reduction in collodiaphyseal angle of affected femur were observed between groups.
conclusionsThe reconstruction of medial support seems important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures. Due to the medial augmentation and improvement of the mechanical stability for proximal femur, the patients might benefit from fracture healing prognosis and functional.
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.