ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
GS Hip Nail versus Affixus Hip Fracture Nail for the Intramedullary Nailing of Intertrochanteric Fractures.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntertrochanteric fractures are a global health concern, especially in aging populations like the Republic of Korea. Surgical treatments like intramedullary nailing are preferred for their benefit. Various hip nails are used worldwide, each with unique features and challenges. This study aims to compare the GS hip nail with the Affixus hip fracture nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective study, conducted at a single center, included 179 patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for intertrochanteric fractures using the GS hip nail or the Affixus hip fracture nail. Excluding specific cases, 43 patients in the GS group and 46 in the Affixus group met the minimum 6-month follow-up criteria.
resultThe GS group exhibited a significantly shorter mean operation time (43.26 min) compared to the Affixus group (51.11 min). Radiographically, both groups showed no significant differences in their reduction quality, tip, and apex distance (TAD), or Cleveland index in the immediate postoperative window. However, the GS group achieved a greater valgus reduction based on the contralateral femoral neck shaft angle (NSA). At 6 months post-operation, there were no significant differences in TAD or advancement and sliding distances. Complication rates were similar between the two groups, with no implant breakages. Clinical outcomes, as measured via mHHS and EQ-5D-5L, showed no significant differences. Despite a slightly higher implant cost, the GS group had a lower total hospital cost than the Affixus group, but this was not statistically significant.
conclusionsThis study highlights the efficiency of the GS hip nail in reducing the operation time compared to the Affixus hip fracture nail with comparable radiologic and clinical outcomes. Further research with long-term follow-up and larger patient studies are needed to fully assess its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes in hip fracture treatment.
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.