ReviewJB & JS open access
Short Versus Long Nails in Treating Subtrochanteric Hip Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Complication Rates.
Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of intramedullary nail length on the biomechanical performance of internal fixation for subtrochanteric femoral fractures.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
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: Subtrochanteric hip fractures present a treatment challenge due to their varied etiologies, complexity, and associated complications. While intramedullary nailing is the standard treatment, the choice between short and long nails remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the complication rates of short versus long cephalomedullary nail fixation in the treatment of subtrochanteric hip fractures. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched for relevant studies up to May 2025. Inclusion criteria comprised studies directly comparing short and long nails in treating subtrochanteric fractures, including randomized controlled trials and comparative studies. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were performed using RevMan 5.23.5 software. Results: After screening, 5 retrospective comparative studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing a total of 4,384 subtrochanteric fracture subjects. The weighted mean age was 82 years, with women representing 70.7% of the sample. Implant failure (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.15-3.92]; p = 0.02) and peri-implant fractures (OR 4.03; 95% CI [1.46-11.14]; p = 0.007) were significantly more common with short nails. The reoperation rate was higher with short nails but not statistically significant (OR 1.33; 95% CI [0.87-2.04]; p = 0.19). No significant differences were observed between groups for nonunion (OR 0.96; 95% CI [0.40-2.33]; p = 0.94), deep infection (OR 0.70; 95% CI [0.23-2.17]; p = 0.40), or 1-year mortality (OR 0.83; 95% CI [0.43-1.58]; p = 0.57). Conclusion: The use of short nails in the management of subtrochanteric hip fractures is associated with higher rates of implant failure and peri-implant fractures, with equivalent rates of nonunion, infection, 1-year mortality, and reoperation. These findings highlight the need for a well-conducted trial to assess the overall benefits and to determine the lowest level of subtrochanteric fracture that can be safely treated with short nails. Level of Evidence: 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.