ArticleAdvances in orthopedics2025
Clinical Outcome of the Oblique Locking Hip Screw.
Article in Advances in orthopedics, 2025. 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.
- Clinical Outcome of the Oblique Locking Hip Screw.Advances in orthopedics · 2025Article
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
Purpose: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of the newly developed Oblique Locking Hip Screw (OLHS) compared with those of the commonly used cephalomedullary nail (CMN) in trochanteric femoral fracture treatment in older patients. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study of patients with trochanteric fractures. Overall, 129 patients were analyzed: 64 treated with OLHS and 65 with CMN. Patient demographic data, fracture classification, surgical parameters (e.g., operating time and intraoperative blood loss), and clinical outcomes were assessed. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using radiographic findings and statistical analyses, including Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney Results: The study included 57 patients in both the OLHS and CMN groups with 3 months of radiographic follow-up data. OLHS was more commonly used for stable AO A1 fractures, whereas CMN was preferred for unstable A2 fractures. Postoperative telescoping was greater with OLHS than with CMN (4.8 ± 4.3 vs. 3.0 ± 4.7 mm; Conclusion: OLHS provides satisfactory clinical outcomes for trochanteric fractures in this exploratory study, with preliminary evidence of adequate stability. Further randomized controlled trials or matched comparative studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.