ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
Plate, short nail, or long nail? Revision rates and complications of three different treatments for peritrochanteric femur fractures.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of integrated dual-lag screw versus single lag screw cephalomedullary nails for intertrochanteric femoral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We sought to investigate the relationship between peritrochanteric femur fracture (OTA 31A fractures) fixation and rates of peri-implant fracture, rates of transfusion, and the rates of increased dependence after secondary surgery for fracture for short cephalomedullary nails (SCMN), long cephalomedullary nails (LCMN), and plate and screw devices (PSD). Methods: Multi center retrospective study involving data collected from 151 Level I-IV trauma centers using ICD9/10 and CPT codes for identification. 13,197 patients with peritrochanteric femur fractures between 2016 and 2021 were included in analysis. Results: We report no significant difference in peri-implant fractures in extramedullary and intramedullary devices (LCMN 50, 0.84 %; SCMN 57, 0.88 %; PSD 6, 0.74 %; p = 0.91) as well as no significant difference in the rates of discharge to home after surgical fixation of a peri-implant fracture. Conclusions: There is no difference in peri-implant fracture rates between SCMN, LCMN, and PSD methods of fixation for peritrochanteric femur fractures. Therefore, longer implants do not seem to protect the femur from future peri-implant fracture when compared to shorter implants. Further analysis is needed to more fully elucidate the morbidity associated with readmission and revision of peri-implant fractures following fixation of peritrochanteric femur fractures. Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III.
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.