ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
Should the diameter of the proximal femoral nail be large enough to fill the canal in the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fracture in patients over fifty?
Article in International orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Finite element analysis of PFNA in the treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric A2.3 fractures of the femur.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
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
purposeMany studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of nail shape, design, or length on the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. However, the clinical implications of the nail diameter remain unclear.
methodsThis study was conducted with 191 patients aged ≥ 50 years with unilateral intertrochanteric fractures treated with the same type of short cephalomedullary nail and followed for at least one year. We recorded the reduction type, tip-apex distance, cortical contact of the nail, and nail/canal diameter ratio (NCR) just distal to the locking screw. The effects of nail diameter on the clinical results were evaluated.
resultsThe average NCR was 68.7. The average union time was 4.78 months. Delayed union or nonunion was seen in 17 patients. Eight patients underwent additional surgery. The mean change in the modified Koval activity score was -0.84. The NCR did not significantly affect the clinical results. Comparisons of cases with NCRs above and below the average and the average - 1 standard deviation revealed no significant difference. The clinical outcome was not related to any variable associated with the nail diameter.
conclusionWith this specific proximal femoral nail, a small diameter relative to that of the femoral canal had no adverse effect on the union of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures, even in patients with unstable fractures and those who had unsatisfactory reductions.
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.