Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40092258›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2025

Evaluation of Functional and Radiological Outcome of Different Cephalomedullary Nail Designs in Intertrochanteric Fractures of Femur.

Adarsh U Thuppad, Harsh Kirthi Rao, Gaurav C Mendon, Santosha Manjunatha, Suraj M Revankar, Kaveesh P Shetty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

6 authors.

Adarsh U ThuppadDepartment of Orthopaedics, Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.
Harsh Kirthi RaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.
Gaurav C MendonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.
Santosha ManjunathaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.
Suraj M RevankarDepartment of Orthopaedics, Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.
Kaveesh P ShettyDepartment of Orthopaedics, Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The incidence of intertrochanteric (IT) fracture is rising because of increase in the survival of the elderly population with osteoporosis and also the increase in the number of motor vehicle accidents. The treatment of choice is normally surgical with internal fixation. The surgical options for these fractures commonly include fixation with dynamic hip screw (DHS) or cephalomedullary nailing. Due to its advantages over DHS, cephalomedullary nailing is the predominant procedure in many parts of the world. Various varieties of cephalomedullary nails are available. Short cephalomedullary nails are indicated for IT fractures not extending beyond lesser trochanter. There are limited studies on the comparison of short cephalomedullary nails for IT fracture. In this study, we are evaluating functional outcome, radiological union and complications of inter-trochanteric fractures of femur treated with three different short cephalomedullary nails: (1) Proximal femoral nail (PFN)-standard, (2) modified short PFN (MS-PFN) and (3) PFN-A2 of 240 mm. Materials and Methods: Our study is a randomized control trial. Subjects are patients with IT fracture presenting to Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre. After obtaining informed and written consent, as per inclusion and exclusion criteria, subjects are randomized into three groups (simple randomization) and treated with standard PFN (240 mm length), MS-PFN (180 mm length), and PFN-A2 of length 240 mm as per randomisation. Duration of the surgery and total intraoperative blood loss is noted. Patients are followed up till 1-year post-operative period, in different intervals. Functional outcome using Harris hip score, fracture union, complications are assessed and compared. Considering the lost to follow-up, the final study size obtained is 75 (25 in each group). Results: In our study, the average age of the patients is 71.29 years with male predominance and right-side predominance. Majority of the fractures belong to Type 1 Group 2 and type 1 Group 4 of Evan's classification. The average operating time and average intraoperative blood loss is less in PFN-A2 group compared to PFN and MS-PFN groups. The fracture union time is earlier in PFN A2 group compared to PFN and MS-PFN group. Functional outcome is better in PFN-A2 group compared to PFN and MS-PFN groups. In PFN group and PFN A2 of 240 mm length group, there were significant patients with anterior thigh pain. Among 75 patients, 3 in PFN group, 2 in MS-PFN group, and 1 in PFN-A2 group had >1 cm of shortening. 2 patients in PFN group and 1 in MS-PFN group had complication of screw cut-out; 2 in PFN group and 2 in PFN-A2 group had surgical site infection; 1 in PFN group and 1 in PFN-A2 group had varus collapse; and 1 in PFN group and 2 in MS-PFN group had Z effect/reverse Z effect. Conclusion: In our study, on comparing three short nails - PFN, MF-PFN, and PFN-A2, PFN-A2 is superior in terms of operating time, intraoperative blood loss, functional outcome and fracture union. MS-PFN is next to PFN-A2 in the above parameters. Hence, PFN-A2 is superior to MS-PFN and MS-PFN is superior to PFN. Moreover, to avoid anterior thigh pain, we recommend the use of shorter nails (180 mm).

Indexed as

Harris hip scoreIntertrochanteric fracturemodified short proximal femoral nailproximal femoral nailproximal femoral nail-A2

Identifiers

PMID40092258
PMCPMC11907113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.