ArticleCureus2025
Differences Between Atypical and Typical Subtrochanteric Fractures Due to Low-Energy Trauma.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubtrochanteric femur fractures caused by low-energy trauma are increasingly prevalent in aging populations. These fractures are categorized as atypical subtrochanteric fractures (ASF), often linked to antiresorptive therapy, or typical subtrochanteric fractures (TSF). This study aimed to compare the characteristics, surgical approaches, and clinical outcomes of ASF and TSF.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study at three hospitals in Japan, including 49 adult patients treated with cephalomedullary nails for low-energy subtrochanteric femur fractures between February 2007 and April 2024. Fractures were classified as ASF or TSF based on the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) criteria. Patient demographics, surgical methods, and outcomes such as bone healing time and nonunion rate were evaluated and statistically compared.
resultsAmong the 49 patients, 23 had ASF and 26 had TSF. The ASF group was significantly younger (69.0 ± 9.8 vs. 84.0 ± 7.3 years, p < 0.01) and had a higher prevalence of antiresorptive therapy (91.3% vs. 11.5%, p < 0.01). ASF patients more frequently underwent auxiliary plating (34.8% vs. 0%, p < 0.01) and received postoperative teriparatide. Despite these interventions, the ASF group exhibited significantly delayed healing (9.0 ± 1.9 vs. 5.8 ± 2.3 months, p < 0.01) and a higher nonunion rate (39.1% vs. 0%, p < 0.01).
conclusionASF showed inferior healing outcomes compared to TSF, even with more aggressive treatments. These findings suggest that traditional TSF strategies may be inadequate for ASF, and biological augmentation, such as bone grafting, might be considered in initial management.
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.