ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Post-operative Functional Outcomes of Intertrochanteric Fractures Treated With Trochanteric Fixation Nail Versus Proximal Femoral Nail.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntertrochanteric femur fractures are common in the elderly and a growing public health concern. Surgical fixation remains the gold standard, with proximal femoral nail (PFN) and trochanteric fixation nail (TFN) being the most commonly used implants. This study compares the functional outcomes and complications of PFN and TFN in the Indian population.
methodsA prospective study was conducted over 16 months at Max Super Specialty Hospital, New Delhi, involving 52 skeletally mature patients with intertrochanteric fractures. Patients were divided into two groups: PFN (n=26) and TFN (n=26). Functional outcomes were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score at six months. Pain was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) at six weeks and six months. Radiographs were used to assess fracture union and complications such as screw backout, varus collapse, and femoral canal impingement.
resultsNo significant differences were found between the groups in terms of age, sex, operative time, or fracture type. The mean operating time was slightly shorter in the TFN group (42.4 min) than in the PFN group (45.7 min), though not statistically significant. Harris Hip Scores, VAS scores, and time to union were similar across groups (p > 0.05). Complication rates were low in both groups, with a slightly lower incidence of screw-related issues and femoral impingement in the TFN group.
conclusionBoth TFN and PFN are effective and reliable options for intertrochanteric fracture fixation. While outcomes are largely comparable, TFN may offer marginal advantages in operative ease and implant-related complications.
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.