ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2025
Comparison of clinical outcomes of patients treated with proximal femoral nail and proximal femoral anatomic plate in upper-end fractures of the femur: A multicenter study.
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to compare the clinical results of proximal femoral nail (PFN) and proximal femoral anatomic plate (PFA) methods used in the treatment of proximal femoral fractures through a multicenter retrospective review, and to determine which method is more advantageous for specific patient groups. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of PFN and PFA techniques and presents findings that can guide clinical decision-making by revealing the differences between these two methods.
methodsBetween 2016 and 2021, 106 patients with proximal femur fractures classified as type 31A1 and 31A2 according to the AO/OTA (the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association) classification system were retrospectively examined. Patients were treated with either PFN or PFA, and the clinical results were compared. The variables evaluated included Oxford Hip Score, time to surgery, operation time, hospital stay, blood loss, and follow-up duration. Statistical analyses were performed using the chi-square test, independent-samples t-test, and Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsWhen the clinical outcomes of patients treated with PFN and PFA were compared, the PFN group had shorter operation time and less blood loss than the PFA group, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). In addition, hospital stay was shorter in the PFN group, also showing a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding follow-up duration (p>0.05). However, the Oxford Hip Score was higher in the PFN group compared to the PFA group, indicating better postoperative functional results (p<0.05). Analyses by age and comorbidities showed no statistically significant differences between the groups (p>0.05).
conclusionPatients who underwent PFN had advantages such as shorter surgical time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay compared to patients who underwent PFA. In this context, PFN can be considered superior in terms of clinical outcomes, as it is less invasive and allows faster recovery. However, no significant difference was observed in follow-up duration.
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.