ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Dynamic Hip Screw and Proximal Femoral Nailing Techniques in Stable Intertrochanteric Fractures.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamic hip screw versus proximal femoral nailing in stable intertrochanteric fractures: a systematic review of efficacy and outcomes.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- A Comparative Study of Dynamic Hip Screws and Proximal Femoral Nails in Intertrochanteric Fractures.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) and Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) are two well-accepted modes of surgical treatments for intertrochanteric (IT) hip fractures. While studies have extensively explored the efficacy of one over the other in unstable fractures, the comparison is sparsely available for stable fractures. The main aim of this study is to compare DHS or PFN corrective surgeries in cases of stable IT fractures operated at the Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar, between 2016 and 2018. Methods We conducted a retrospective data review of all stable IT fractures operated at the Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar, between 2016 and 2018. Data were extracted from electronic medical CERNER records, including demographics, clinical notes, operative reports, radiographs, and imaging reports. Data review was followed by prospective data collection via phone about the current post-operative functional status of all cases. Data analysis was done on SPSS v.23. Study was approved by Medical Research Center (MRC) and Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC). Study Protocol ID: MRC-01-19-108 Results Out of 62 stable IT fractures operated at our center during the study period, 42 underwent DHS correction, while 20 had PFN. The mean age of the studied cohort was 66.56 years (± 15.95). Males were twice more than females. The mean duration of surgery was 83.73 minutes for DHS and 120.25 minutes for PFN. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Differences in intraoperative blood loss, duration between fracture and surgery, and length of hospital stay were all statistically insignificant. Patients who underwent PFN showed a higher frequency of return to ambulation (assisted and unassisted), while the number of patients with DHS was less for the functional outcome. Similarly, more post-PFN radiographs displayed union than post-DHS radiographs (55% and 38%, respectively). This difference was statistically insignificant. Conclusion Our study showed promising results for stable IT fractures treated with PFN. However, more data and prospective observational studies are required to establish more statistically significant results.
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.