ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Static versus dynamic intramedullary nailing for femoral and tibial shaft fractures: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal fixation method for femur and tibia shaft fractures remains debated. Both static intramedullary nailing (SIMN) and dynamic intramedullary nailing (DIMN) are commonly used. This study aims to compare the efficacy of SIMN versus DIMN in promoting fracture healing. Methods: This double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 2022 to March 2024. Fifty-two people with single transverse or short oblique femur or tibia fractures were randomly put into two groups, SIMN and DIMN. Each group had 26 people. The primary outcome was time to union, and secondary outcomes included surgical and post-surgical complications. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 28.0. Results: The study included 52 participants (22 men and 30 women), with a mean age of 54.48 (SD 11.31). The median time to union in the DIMN group was significantly lower than in the SIMN group (20.5 (IQR 17-24) versus 24 (IQR 22-35), Conclusion: Dynamic intramedullary nailing (DIMN) significantly reduces the median time to union compared to static intramedullary nailing (SIMN) for femoral and tibial shaft fractures. Despite the shorter union time with DIMN, both techniques showed similar outcomes regarding nonunion, malunion, delayed union, and reoperation rates. These findings suggest that while DIMN may offer faster fracture healing, SIMN and DIMN are viable options depending on individual patient and clinical considerations.
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.