ArticleCureus2022
Comparison of Twin Screw Derotation Type Versus Single Helical Blade Type Cephalomedullary Nail in Trochanteric Fractures in Geriatric Population.
Article in Cureus, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lag Screw Design Is a Predictor for Cut-Out Complication After Intertrochanteric Femur Fracture Treatment in Elderly. A Comparative Analysis.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Comparative Study between Proximal Femoral Nail Anti Rotation and Proximal Femoral Nail Anti Rotation Asian to Assessing Functional Outcome.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2024Article
- 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the usage of two devices, the twin screw derotation type and the helical blade type, in intertrochanteric fractures in the geriatric population at a tertiary-level center. Methods Forty-six eligible patients with intertrochanteric fractures operated with the standard proximal femoral nail (PFN) or proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA2) were included for analysis. This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data over the study period. Demographics, various operative parameters, outcome parameters, and complications were assessed. Medical management of osteoporosis was provided to all patients. The student t-test and chi-square test were used with SPSS V22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) for statistical analysis. Results The mean follow-up was 14 months. The hospital stay and Harris hip score were similar in both groups, but the radiation exposure, surgical time, and blood loss were significantly less in the case of PFNA2. Screw cut-out was also not observed in our study. Conclusion Both PFNA2 and PFN are effective in treating unstable trochanteric fractures in terms of functional outcomes. However, PFNA2 is better because it requires less radiation exposure (p<0.05) due to single guidewire use, a short learning curve, less blood loss, shorter surgical time(p<0.05), and fewer complications. We suggest it to be the preferred implant in trochanteric fractures in the geriatric population and other age groups.
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.