ArticleCureus2024
Prospective Research Comparing Different Trochanteric Fracture Fixation Techniques.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim Evaluation and comparison of various methods of trochanteric fracture fixation. Methods This study was conducted prospectively at the Orthopaedics Department of Dr. D Y Patil Medical College and Research Centre. The study spanned 18 months and involved 100 patients treated in the outpatient and the emergency department. Patients who fulfilled that specific criteria were selected for this study and the appropriate surgical intervention for each group was determined through radiological examination. Results Of the 100 patients, 55 (55%) were male and 45 (45%) females. Patients in our collection ranged from 20 to 90 years old. Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN), Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS ), and Proximal Femoral Locking Compression Plate (PFLCP ) groups averaged 56, 58, and 64 years old, respectively. The most common cause of intertrochanteric fracture was domestic falls (60%), followed by road traffic accidents (35%). The Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification rated 40 individuals (40%) as stable and 60 as unstable. Most patients in our study had unstable A3 fractures. PFN patients had 16 A3 fractures. In DHS, 32 patients suffered A3 fractures. Twelve PFLCP patients suffered A3 fractures. The smallest group had A1 fractures. Six PFN patients suffered A1 fractures. Two DHS patients had A1 fractures. Two PFLCP patients suffered A1 fractures. PFN group mean scores improved significantly after one and three months in this study. At six months, the PFN group had a significant mean score improvement. Conclusion PFN results ranged from satisfactory to excellent, offering numerous advantages over other methods such as DHS and PFLCP. The benefits of PFN include a shorter lever arm, fracture site compression, and enhanced rotational stability, which contribute to a lower chance of mechanical failure. Additionally, patients treated with PFN typically experience shorter hospital stays, earlier mobilization, less blood loss, shorter surgery times, faster rehabilitation, and quicker bone healing, making PFN a highly effective treatment option for certain fractures.
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.