ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Radiographic comparison of compression hip screws and cephalomedullary nails in stable femoral trochanteric fractures.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to radiographically compare cephalomedullary nails (CMN) and compression hip screws (CHS) in stable intertrochanteric femoral fractures, specifically assessing femoral offset (FO), neck-shaft angle (NSA), and leg length discrepancy (LLD). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study retrospectively reviewed 181 patients treated between October 2020 and March 2024. After exclusions, 59 patients (CHS: 32; CMN: 27) with AO/OTA 31A1 fractures were included. Radiographic parameters (NSA, FO, and LLD) were measured using pre- and postoperative radiographs and preoperative CT. Rotational and magnification corrections were applied. Group comparisons were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests.
resultsPostoperative and final NSA were significantly smaller (more varus) in the CMN group compared with the CHS group (postoperative NSA: 125.4° ± 8.0° vs. 133.0° ± 8.4°, p < 0.001). Measured FO was greater in the CMN group postoperatively and at final follow-up, but differences were not significant after correction. LLD was significantly greater in the CMN group (corrected postoperative LLD: CMN - 3.6 ± 3.5 mm vs. CHS 1.1 ± 2.5 mm, p < 0.001). Corrected NSA and FO did not differ significantly from those on the contralateral side in either group, and the proportion of patients with > 20% FO deviation was comparable. Bone union occurred in 58 of 59 cases; one CMN case required reoperation due to cut-through. Functional Ambulation Category scores showed no significant differences.
conclusionCHS tended toward valgus and CMN tended toward varus alignment; however, corrected NSA and FO were restored to near-contralateral values in both groups. Limb shortening was greater after CMN fixation, although it was likely not clinically significant. Both implants provided reliable fixation and similar functional outcomes. Larger studies assessing detailed gait parameters are warranted to clarify the clinical impact of these radiographic differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41432784What 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.