ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
Standard or Fin SIGN® nail? which option is better for the treatment of femoral fractures in low and middle-income countries?
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.
- Eccentric Hexapod external fixator assisted closed reduction and intramedullary nail fixation for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFemoral fractures are common in low and middle-income countries (LMIC), predominantly caused by high-energy trauma. The surgical implant generation network (SIGN®) program offers two different intramedullary nails in LMIC which are designed to be used without image intensifier free of charge for the patients: the SIGN standard nail (SSN®) and the SIGN Fin nail (SFN®). This study aimed to compare the results of the SSN® and the SFN® for the treatment of middle and distal shaft femoral fractures through a retrograde approach. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a retrospective, descriptive, and non-experimental study including all consecutive patients who underwent surgical management of middle or distal shaft femoral fracture between January 2017 and May 2022 in an NGO hospital located in Freetown, Sierra Leone. The duration of surgery, type of reduction, complications like screw loosening, implant migration, anterior knee pain and non-union rate at six months of follow up were evaluated.
resultsA total of 122 patients were included in the study. Group A: 60 patients were managed with SSN® and Group B: 62 patients with SFN®. The mean operative time was 104 min with SSN® and 78 with SFN® (p < 0.001). Open reduction of the fracture was necessary in ten (16.7%) patients with SSN® and 12 (19.4%) patients treated with SFN® (p = 0.69). Non-union was observed in one (1.7%) patient with SSN® and two (3.2%) patients with SFN® (p = 0.57).
conclusionsBoth options seem equally effective in treating midshaft and distal femoral shaft fractures. The SFN® reduces the surgical time, due to this fact, in polytraumatized patients, patients with bilateral femur fracture or patients with ipsilateral tibia fracture, it can be considered as the best option to be used. There was no statistical difference in the complications presented by the two groups.
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.