ArticleCurrent medical science2025
Comparative Efficacy of Retrograde Pubic Ramus Intramedullary Nails and Percutaneous Cannulated Screws in Treating Anterior Pelvic Ring Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Current medical science, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of retrograde pubic ramus intramedullary nail (RPRIN) and percutaneous cannulated screw (PCS) in the treatment of anterior pelvic ring fractures (APRFs).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 45 patients with APRFs treated between February 2019 and October 2022 in our trauma center. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical method: 20 received RPRIN fixation, and 25 received PCS fixation. Key variables including operation time, fluoroscopic time, blood loss, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Fracture reduction quality was assessed using the Matta score system, and pelvic functional recovery was evaluated using the Majeed score system at the final follow-up. Quantitative variables were compared using the independent sample t test, while categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.
resultsThe RPRIN group had significantly shorter operation time (36.3 ± 5.6 min vs. 49.5 ± 6.9 min, P < 0.01), fluoroscopic time (32.0 ± 2.8 s vs. 48.4 ± 3.6 s, P < 0.01), and less blood loss (20.4 ± 7.6 mL vs. 34.0 ± 5.7 mL, P < 0.01) than the PCS group. Fracture reduction quality (Matta outcome) and pelvic functional recovery (Majeed outcome) were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant complications were reported in either group.
conclusionsBoth RPRIN and PCS are effective for treating APRFs. However, RPRIN offers distinct advantages by reducing operation time, fluoroscopic time, and blood loss, making it a more efficient and less invasive option. Further multicenter studies and biomechanical analyses are warranted to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40192888What 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.