Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38980889›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus InterTan nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chang-Sheng Liao, Fang-Zheng He, Xi-Yong Li, Peng-Fei Han

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Factors influencing mechanical failure following intramedullary nailing of proximal femur fractures: a retrospective cohort study.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chang-Sheng LiaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, P.R. China.ORCID 0009-0007-4805-8905
Fang-Zheng HeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, P.R. China.
Xi-Yong LiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, P.R. China.
Peng-Fei HanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, P.R. China.ORCID 0000-0002-2238-2957

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) and InterTan Nail in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Given the high incidence of femoral intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly population and its impact on quality of life, choosing the most effective and safest surgical option is crucial. PFNA and InterTan are currently two commonly used techniques, but there is a lack of systematic evaluation comparing their safety and effectiveness. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap through Meta-analysis, providing clinicians with evidence-based treatment recommendations. MATERIALS AND

methodsA computer search was used to search for published literature on PFNA and InterTan in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Cinahl, CBM, and CNKI.A total of 853 related literatures were retrieved, and 15 literatures were finally included. Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale and Cochrane systematic review methodologies were used to assess the quality of the literature. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software, following data extraction.

resultsThe comparison found that during the surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures, the operation time, fluoroscopy time, and blood loss in the PFNA group were significantly shorter than those in the InterTan group, and the difference was statistically significant. In terms of postoperative complication rates, the InterTan group had a significant advantage over the PFNA group. Shaft fracture, varus collapse, cut out, screw migration, and pain of hip and thigh were the most likely to occur in the PFNA group, and the differences were all statistically significant. In terms of postoperative efficacy, the results of the PFNA group and the InterTan group were comparable, and there was no significant differences.

conclusionsWhen selecting surgical techniques for the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures, it is necessary to conduct individualized assessments based on the patient's overall health status, surgical tolerance, and post-operative recovery needs. For patients who cannot tolerate long-term surgery or are in poor physical condition, PFNA may be more appropriate. While for patients who can tolerate long-term surgery or have more complex conditions, InterTan may be more suitable.

Indexed as

Bone NailsHip FracturesFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHumansPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID38980889
PMCPMC11233004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.