ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Comparison of retrograde and antegrade tibial intramedullary nail in the treatment of extra-articular distal tibial fractures.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary retrospective analysis of combined retrograde tibial intramedullary nail and lateral less invasive stabilization system for distal femoral fractures.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Comparison of Three Internal Fixation Constructs for AO/OTA 33-A3 Distal Femoral Fractures: A Biomechanical Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Impact of Tibetan ethnicity and residence altitude on complications during total knee arthroplasty and difficulties of measurement of perioperative blood loss.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of retrograde and antegrade intramedullary tibial nails (RTN and ATN) in managing extra-articular distal tibial fractures, addressing current controversies in surgical approaches. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis included 56 patients treated between December 2019 and August 2022 with either RTN (n = 23) or ATN (n = 33). Data on baseline characteristics, operative specifics, fluoroscopy usage, hospitalization duration, fracture healing times, time to full weight-bearing, distal tibial alignment, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores at final follow-up, and complications were evaluated and compared.
resultsBaseline characteristics were generally comparable and no significant differences except for fracture line lengths (RTN: 6.1 ± 1.9 cm vs. ATN: 7.8 ± 1.6 cm) were observed. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 20 months. No significant differences were observed in operative duration, hospital stays, coronal angulation of the distal tibial joint surface, or AOFAS scores at final follow-up. Intraoperative fluoroscopy was more frequent in the ATN group (9.5 ± 1.5) compared to RTN (8.3 ± 1.1) (P = 0.001). RTN showed shorter healing times (9.6 ± 1.2 weeks) and quicker return to full weight-bearing (12.9 ± 1.3 weeks) than ATN (10.6 ± 1.2 weeks and 13.9 ± 1.7 weeks, respectively). RTN complications included one delayed union, one superficial infection, and two ankle pain, while ATN complications comprised one delayed union, one superficial infection, seven anterior knee pain, and one malalignment. Despite higher complication rates with ATN, the differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionFor the treatment of extra-articular distal tibial fractures, both RTN and ATN are effective approaches. RTN may offer benefits such as reduced fluoroscopy use, accelerated healing, and earlier return to full weight-bearing compared to ATN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39395030What 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.