ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
Comparison of a New Minimally Invasive Reduction Technique Using Open Wiring in the Treatment of Subtrochanteric Femur Fractures.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMinimally invasive reduction and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are the most common strategies used to treat subtrochanteric femur fractures (SFF). We report a new minimally invasive surgical technique for the successful reduction of SFF and maintenance of fragmental position after longitudinal traction. This study compared the radiological and clinical effects of these two reduction techniques when using IMN to treat SFF.
methodsAll 43 patients who underwent SFF at our hospital were included in this retrospective study. Twenty-two patients were treated using the conservative method (CM) from March 2016 to January 2018. Between May 2019 and March 2022, 21 patients with SFF were treated using this new technique (NT). All the patients completed the entire follow-up period. Details of both groups were obtained and analyzed from electronic medical records. Postoperative complications, fracture reduction quality, and fracture healing times were recorded and compared.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences after comparing both groups in terms of patient demographics or the incidence of complications. The mean operating time was 68.2 min (range, 54-85 min) in the group NT, shorter than 78 min (range, 65-103 min) in the group CM (p = 0.005). Compared to 275.6 mL average blood loss using NT, that using CM was 329.5 mL (p = 0.021). Three patients (14.2%) experienced deep venous thrombosis of the affected lower limb; however, no other postoperative complications occurred in the NT group, similar to those in the CM group. Compared to the uninjured side, the average fracture displacement was corrected to 2.7 mm (range, 2-4 mm) in the anterior-posterior view, and the mean anterior angulation was restored to 2.0° (range, 0°-10°) in the lateral view in group NT. All fractures in the NT group achieved consolidation healing within a mean time of 4.7 months (range, 4-8 months). The lower-extremity functional scale (LEFS)score of all patients was 60.4 (range, 47-71) in the NT group at the last follow-up. Similar results were observed for fracture reduction quality, time to bone union, and the LEFS in the CM group.
conclusionsThe soft tissue rebalancing technique utilizes hemostatic forceps as a lever and soft tissue around the fracture end as fulcrums to successfully overcome deforming forces in the proximal femoral fragment. Compared to CM, it is a minimally invasive, time-saving method for closed reduction and maintenance of the fragment position before opening and reaming.
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.