Trial reportPeerJ2024
Comparative analysis of radiological outcomes among cephalomedullary nails: helical, screw and winged screw.
Trial report in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The therapeutic effect of fixation using alternative implants for the treatment of hip fractures (FAITH) in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures after falls: a meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Internal-locking intramedullary nails (talons, claws, wings, wedge-locks, endopins): a mechanics-guided scoping review of designs, failure signatures, and technique imperatives.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Cephalomedullary nails (CMN) are implants with a high success rate in the surgical treatment of trochanteric fractures. The aim of this study is to compare the radiological outcomes and mechanical complications of femoral trochanteric fractures treated with three different CMNs. Methods: Intertrochanteric fractures in patients aged 50 years and older treated with CMN between January 2016 and December 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. A total of 158 cases meeting the criteria were included to final analysis. Cases were divided into three groups based on the type of nail used (helical blade: group 1, Results: Study groups were homogenic in terms of demographic characteristics, fracture type and reduction quality. Regarding mechanical complications, no statistically significant difference was found between groups. All three implants had similar outcomes on femoral neck shortening, varus collapse and lag sliding. Pooled analysis of 158 cases showed that mechanical complications increase as the quality of reduction decreases ( Conclusion: The radiological outcomes and mechanical complications of helical blade, screw type blade and winged screw type blade proximal femoral nails are similar in selected group. Regardless of the device type, it is necessary to obtain high reduction quality, obtain TAD within described range and optimally place the blade according to Cleveland Zones to reduce the failure rate and avoid complications.
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.