ArticleJB & JS open access
Cephalomedullary Nail Breakages in a Multicenter Insertion vs. Retrieval Database Comparison: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 3,882 Patients.
Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cephalomedullary nails are used for internal fixation of proximal femur fractures, pathological fractures, and for revision fixation in the case of failures. Nail breakages are rare, with published figures demonstrating a high variability with a previous benchmark set at less than 1.3%. The aim of this study was to use a large and geographically isolated patient cohort to better define and compare the proportion of implant breakages across a range of cephalomedullary nails. Methods: Implantation data were collected from electronic theater records at all tertiary public orthopaedic hospitals in the state of Western Australia between 1 January, 2001, and 5 July, 2017, to capture a consecutive series of implant insertions across all indications. This was linked to Western Australia's Centre for Implant Technology and Retrieval Analysis (CITRA) nail repository records to identify broken nails received for analysis in the subsequent years until data collection ceased on 5 July, 2024. Results: Three thousand eight hundred eighty-two cephalomedullary nails were implanted. There were 18 nail breakages in this cohort recovered by CITRA, giving an overall breakage proportion of 0.5%. While breakages were rare, the Trochanteric Fixation Nail-Advanced (TFNA) demonstrated a 7-fold higher proportion of reported breakages (6/393; 1.5%) compared with its predecessor the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA; 6/2,621; 0.2%, p = 0.002). The proportions of reported breakages in the Gamma3 and PFN prostheses were 0.6% (2/320) and 0.7% (4/548), respectively. Conclusions: In this large consecutive sample of cephalomedullary nail patients, the TFNA appears to have a higher proportion of reported breakages than one of its predecessors, the PFNA, and this sits outside our previously defined benchmark. Breakages need to be considered in conjunction with other causes of failure and the index diagnosis when making decisions about implant choice in the management of proximal femur fractures. Further studies that are better able to deal with the many confounding variables of implant fatigue failure are required. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III (Retrospective Cohort Study). See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.