ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- What patient reported outcome measures are used in clinical trials in hip fracture? A systematic mapping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of mechanical and clinical outcomes between cement-augmented and conventional cephalomedullary nailing in osteoporotic trochanteric fractures: a propensity score-matched cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Design innovation and rationale of the intramedullary implants for treating Intertrochanteric fractures: A review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly fixation and rehabilitation is the gold standard treatment for intertrochanteric femur fractures. Cement augmentation through perforated head elements has been developed to avoid postoperative complications such as cut-out or cut-through. The purpose of this study was to compare two head elements in terms of cement distribution using computed tomography (CT) and to examine their initial fixation and clinical outcomes.
methodsElderly patients who had intertrochanteric fractures were treated with a trochanteric fixation nail advanced (TFNA) helical blade (Blade group) or a TFNA lag screw (Screw group). In both groups, 4.2 mL of cement was injected under an image intensifier (1.8 mL of cement was directed cranially and 0.8 mL each caudally, anteriorly, and posteriorly). Patient demographics and clinical outcome were investigated post-operatively. Cement distribution from the center of the head element was evaluated with CT. Maximum penetration depth (MPD) were measured in the coronal and sagittal planes. On each axial plane, the cross-sectional areas in the cranial, caudal, anterior and posterior directions were calculated. The sum of cross-sectional areas (successive 36 slices) was defined as the volume of the head element.
resultsThe Blade group included 14 patients, and the Screw group included 15 patients. In the Blade group, MPD in the anterior and caudal direction was significantly greater than that in the posterior direction (p < 0.01). In the Screw group, volume in the cranial and posterior direction was significantly greater than that in the Blade group (p = 0.03). Subsequently, the total volume in the Screw group was significantly larger than that in the Blade group (p < 0.01). No significant correlation was detected between bone mineral density, T score, young adult mean, and total cement volume. Change in radiographic parameters and clinical outcome such as Parker score and visual analog scale were similar in both groups. No patients suffered from cut-out / cut through or non-union.
conclusionsThe position of cement distribution through the lag screw is different from that through the helical blade, and the total volume of the head element is significantly larger in the lag screw. Both groups had similarly effective results in terms of mechanical stability after surgery, postoperative pain and early phase of rehabilitation.
trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN45341843, 24/12/2022, Retrospectively registered.
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.