SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
Is the traction table necessary to treat femoral fractures with intramedullary nailing? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lateral decubitus positioning was associated with improved efficiency and functional outcome compared with traction table positioning for cephalomedullary nailing of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a retrospective comparative study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Novel, non-invasive technique for fracture reduction in rare pertrochanteric femur fractures in patients with ipsilateral above-knee amputation: a technical report.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Intertrochanteric Nailing Without a Traction Table: A Practical Positioning Technique on a Standard Operating Table.Cureus · 2025Article
- Ipsilateral Foot Drop After Leg Traction on Fracture Table for Mid-Shaft Femur Fracture Nailing: A Rare Case Report.Cureus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe traction table is generally used in femoral intramedullary nailing surgery. Recently, some published studies have shown that the same or better treatment effects can be gotten without a traction table. It remains no consensus on this issue.
methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was applied in this study. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for eligible studies. The random-effect model was used to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk ratios with 95% CIs. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to verify the results.
resultsThe pooled estimates of seven studies, including 266 cases each in the manual traction group and traction table group, indicated that manual traction could shorten operative time [SMD, - 0.77; 95% CI (- 0.98, - 0.55); P < 0.00001] and preoperative set-up time [SMD, - 2.37; 95% CI (- 3.90, - 0.84); P = 0.002], but it would not reduce intraoperative blood loss volume and fluoroscopy time. No statistical difference was found in their fracture healing time, postoperative Harris scores, and malunion rate. The use of a Traction repositor could reduce the set-up time [SMD, - 2.48; 95% CI (- 4.91, - 0.05); P < 0.00001].
conclusionsCompared with manual traction, the traction table in femoral intramedullary nailing surgery lengthened operative time and preoperative set-up time. At the same time, it did not show significant advantages in reducing blood loss volume and fluoroscopy time, or improving prognosis. In clinical practice, the optimal surgical plan must be made on a case-by-case basis to avoid unnecessary traction table use.
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.