ArticleRevista brasileira de ortopedia2025
[Comparison of Intramedullary Nails with Cephalic Screws and Dynamic Hip Screw in the Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures in Adults - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis].
Article in Revista brasileira de ortopedia, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical, functional, and safety outcomes of intramedullary nails with cephalic screws (cephalomedullary nails, CMNs) and the dynamic hip screws (DHSs) in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures (of grades 31-A2/A3 according to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen [AO, Association for the Study of Internal Fixation]/Orthopaedic Trauma Association [OTA] and III-V according to the Tronzo classification). Methods: The present systematic review followed the 2020 guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, with searches on the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. We included comparative studies (randomized controlled trials or prospective cohorts) published from 2000 to 2025. The outcomes included mortality, implant failure, reoperation, and functional scores. We also conducted an analysis through the random effects model, heterogeneity assessment per I Results: A total of 18 studies were included. The CMN group presented shorter operative time (mean difference [MD] = -12.3 minutes), lower intraoperative bleeding (MD = -88 mL), reduced mechanical failure (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42), and fewer reoperations (OR = 0.58). There were no significant differences regarding the functional scores and mortality. The quality of the evidence was high for operative time and mechanical complications, moderate for reoperation, and low for the functional scores. Conclusion: The CMNs were superior to DHS in multiple clinical outcomes for unstable trochanteric fractures, and they should be considered the treatment of choice, especially in cases of greater instability. However, in resource-limited settings, such as those of the Brazilian public hospitals, DHS remains a viable alternative when used with appropriate technical criteria.
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.