ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of the Outcomes of the Proximal Femur Plate (PFP) and Proximal Femoral Nail (PFN) in a Patient Presenting With Trochanteric Femur Fracture.
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
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the outcomes of proximal femoral nailing (PFN) and proximal femur plate (PFP) in patients with trochanteric fractures. The primary objective was to assess fracture union time, while secondary objectives included operative duration, surgical site infection (SSI), and length of hospital stay. STUDY
designThis is a prospective comparative study. Setting and duration: The study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedics, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad, from September 21, 2023, to September 20, 2024, following approval of the study synopsis by the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan (CPSP). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 60 patients who met the inclusion criteria and underwent surgical treatment for trochanteric fractures were enrolled. Patients were allocated to one of two groups based on the surgical procedure performed: Group A underwent PFN, and Group B underwent PFP. No randomization was performed; patients were assigned based on the procedure received. All fractures were classified according to the AO Foundation and Orthopaedic - Trauma Association (AO/OTA) 31-A system and categorized as stable or unstable. Postoperative outcomes were assessed at one, three, and four months, focusing on SSI, operative time, and fracture healing.
resultsIn the PFN group, patient ages ranged from 50 to 80 years (median: 60 years), while in the PFP group, the median age was 58 years. SSI occurred in two patients (6.7%) in the PFN group and in one patient (3.3%) in the PFP group (p = 0.500). The mean operative duration was significantly longer in the PFN group (79.10 ± 12.78 minutes) compared to the PFP group (64.13 ± 12.92 minutes) (p < 0.0001). Similarly, fracture healing time was longer in the PFN group (12.57 ± 1.79 weeks) compared to the PFP group (10.60 ± 1.10 weeks) (p < 0.0001). Stratified analyses confirmed that these differences were most evident in stable AO/OTA 31-A1 and selected A2 patterns.
conclusionWhile SSI rates were similar between the groups, PFP demonstrated shorter operative time and earlier fracture union compared to PFN. These findings suggest that PFP may be considered in selected stable fracture patterns, particularly in resource-constrained settings, whereas PFN remains the preferred option for unstable fractures.
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.