SynthesisActa orthopaedica2025
A comparison of cancellous screws in a sliding compression configuration and angle-stable sliding compression implants for internal fixation of femoral neck fractures in the non-elderly predominantly below 65 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta orthopaedica, 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 and purposeInternal fixation is the preferred treatment in the non-elderly with femoral neck fractures, regardless of fracture displacement. High complication rates are reported, in particular for displaced fractures. We aimed to compare cancellous screws with angle-stable sliding compression implants for internal fixation of femoral neck fractures in the non-elderly.
methodsA systematic search was carried out in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane. The search results were screened by 2 reviewers using Covidence and assessed for risk of bias. All comparative studies were included. The studies reported at least 1 of the following outcomes: avascular necrosis, fixation failure/cut-out, non-union, any complication, reoperation, femoral neck shortening, or Harris Hip Score (HHS). Dichotomous outcomes are reported as risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD). All effect measures use a random effects model.
resultsThe search yielded 23 studies eligible for inclusion: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 19 retrospective cohort trials, including 1,844 fractures. Only 1 study had low risk of bias. The results demonstrated no difference in RCTs alone. Analysis of all studies showed superior outcomes in favor of angle-stable sliding compression implants for fixation failure/cut-out (RR 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.94), any complication (RR 0.49, CI 0.28-0.87), shortening > 5 mm (RR 0.54, CI 0.37-0.80), and HHS 6-24 months (MD 3.1, CI 1.8-4.4).
conclusionRCTs alone showed no significant differences between implant types. When including retrospective studies, angle-stable sliding compression implants demonstrated some advantages. The strength of evidence is limited by the predominance of retrospective cohort studies and high risk of bias in the included studies.
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.