ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Evaluation of the effectiveness of suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approach in intramedullary nailing for the treatment of tibial fractures.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar tibial nailing: the ongoing debate.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Review
- Comparison of Tibial Nail Entry Point Location Among Infrapatellar, Suprapatellar, and Lateral Parapatellar Approaches Using Postoperative 3D-CT.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Morphological characteristics of spiral tibial shaft fractures involving the distal articular surface: a retrospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntramedullary nailing (IMN) is the standard treatment for tibial shaft fractures, but the choice between the suprapatellar and infrapatellar approaches remains debated. This study aims to compare the effectiveness, functional outcomes, and safety of both approaches. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 126 adult patients with tibial shaft fractures treated with IMN between January 2020 and December 2022. Patients were divided into suprapatellar (n = 66) and infrapatellar (n = 60) groups. Outcomes assessed included operative time, fluoroscopy exposure, hospital stay, fracture healing time, knee function (Lysholm score), time to removal of internal fixation, complication rates, and clinical effectiveness (excellent-good rate).
resultsThe suprapatellar group showed significantly shorter operative time (75.86 ± 9.80 min vs. 84.17 ± 10.47 min, p < 0.001), fewer fluoroscopy exposures (18.01 ± 4.89 vs. 32.13 ± 5.77, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (6.73 ± 1.10 days vs. 8.05 ± 0.85 days, p < 0.001). Lysholm scores were significantly higher in the suprapatellar group (91.09 ± 6.42 vs. 82.04 ± 7.28, p < 0.001), indicating better knee function. Complication rates, including anterior knee pain, were lower in the suprapatellar group (15.15 vs. 33.33%, p = 0.017). The excellent-good rates were comparable between groups (84.85 vs. 83.33%, p = 0.816).
conclusionsThe suprapatellar approach could offer benefits over the infrapatellar approach, including reduced operative time, fluoroscopy exposure, and hospital stay, as well as improved knee function and fewer complications. It might be a preferable option for tibial fracture fixation.
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.