Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36591439›Full record

ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2023

Comparison of outcomes of retrograde intramedullary nailing versus locking plate fixation in distal femur fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 936 patients in 16 studies.

Sameer Aggarwal, Rajesh Kumar Rajnish, Prasoon Kumar, Amit Srivastava, Kuldeep Rathor, Rehan Ul Haq

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Periprosthetic fractures of the knee.EFORT open reviews · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Value of retrograde femoral nailing : Pros and cons].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sameer AggarwalDepartment of Orthopaedics, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India.
Rajesh Kumar RajnishDepartment of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Prasoon KumarDepartment of Orthopaedics, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India.
Amit SrivastavaDepartment of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, Delhi, India.
Kuldeep RathorDepartment of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Rehan Ul HaqDepartment of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Jodhpur · INPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhopal · INUniversity College of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The surgical treatment for distal femur fractures has evolved over time, and it depends upon certain factors; open or closed fracture type, the pattern of fracture, presence of metaphyseal comminution, intra-articular extension, and the bone quality are some of the crucial ones. Both retrograde intramedullary nails (RIMN) and locking plates (LP) can be used for the fixation of these fractures. However, the optimal method among the two devices is still a topic of debate, the superiority of one over the other being unclear. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conceptualized to compare the outcomes of RIMN with distal femur LP. Methods: The primary electronic search was conducted on Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane Library databases for the published literature from the inception to 25 Results: Six randomized control trials, 2 prospective and 8 retrospective studies with 936 patients with 8 bilateral cases (467: RIMN; 477: LP) were included. Our analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in terms of mean fracture union time, overall complications, implant-related complications, re-operation rates, and duration of surgeries. Although a better knee range of motion was seen in the LP group, however, it also showed more nonunion and infection than the RIMN group. Conclusion: The present review shows that there are significantly lesser nonunions and infections, in the RIMN group as compared to LP for distal femur fractures, although a better postoperative knee range of motion was seen in the latter. However, in terms of fracture union time, the overall rate of complications, re-operation rates, and duration of surgeries, there is no difference between the two surgical options.

Indexed as

Distal femoral locking plateDistal femoral nailDistal femur fractureLocking plateRetrograde femoral nailSupracondylar femur fracture

Identifiers

PMID36591439
PMCPMC9800249
OpenAlexW4311774720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.