ArticleJB & JS open access
Comparison of Short and Long Intramedullary Nails in the Treatment of Trochanteric and Subtrochanteric Fractures: An Observational Study of 17,606 Fractures in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is no consensus of whether to use a short or long intramedullary nail (IMN) in the treatment of trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 17,606 trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures treated with an IMN registered in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from 2008 to 2022. The primary outcome was overall 1-year reoperation risk, and secondary outcomes were reoperation risk for specific causes and 1-year mortality for short IMNs (SIMNs) and long IMNs (LIMNs) and to compare 1-year reoperation risk for short and long versions of the 2 most used brands (Gamma3 and TRIGEN INTERTAN). Cox regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, and ASA class and instrument variable (IV) analyses with operation year and hospital as instrument were performed to calculate hazard rate ratios (HRRs). Results: LIMNs had a statistically significant higher reoperation risk than SIMNs in A1 fractures in the IV analysis. No other statistically significant differences in overall 1-year reoperation risk or 1-year mortality between SIMNs and LIMNs were found for any of the fracture types. Infection was a more frequent cause of reoperation after LIMNs (HRR, 2.82 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-5.20]) while peri-implant fractures were less common for LIMNs (HRR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.20-0.75]) compared with SIMNs. No statistically significant differences were found in reoperation risk between short and long Gamma3 nails or TRIGEN INTERTAN nails. Conclusion: SIMNs performed equal or better than LIMNs for all types of trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.