Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41552216›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Open Versus Closed Reduction in Subtrochanteric Femur Fractures: The Critical Role of Acceptable Reduction in Healing Outcomes.

Pedro Seabra, Daniel Gonçalves, Pedro Barra Simões, Margarida Gomes, Miguel Pimentel, José Oliveira, Henrique Sousa, André Sarmento

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Pedro SeabraOrthopaedics and Traumatology, ULSGE - Unidade Local de Saúde de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, PRT.
Daniel GonçalvesOrthopaedics and Traumatology, ULSAM - Unidade Local de Saúde do Alto Minho, Viana do Castelo, PRT.
Pedro Barra SimõesOrthopaedics and Traumatology, ULSGE - Unidade Local de Saúde de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, PRT.
Margarida GomesOrthopaedics and Traumatology, Unidade Local de Saúde do Nordeste, Macedo de Cavaleiros, PRT.
Miguel PimentelOrthopaedics and Traumatology, ULSGE - Unidade Local de Saúde de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, PRT.
José OliveiraOrthopaedics and Traumatology, ULSGE - Unidade Local de Saúde de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, PRT.
Henrique SousaOrthopaedics and Traumatology, ULSGE - Unidade Local de Saúde de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, PRT.
André SarmentoOrthopaedics and Traumatology, ULSGE - Unidade Local de Saúde de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, PRT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Subtrochanteric femur fractures are challenging injuries due to high mechanical stress and compromised vascularization, resulting in higher complication rates compared with other proximal femur fractures. While intramedullary nailing is the treatment of choice, controversy persists regarding whether open or closed reduction provides superior outcomes. Some evidence suggests that open reduction may achieve better alignment, whereas others highlight risks of impaired biology, blood loss, and infection. This study aimed to compare open versus closed reduction in subtrochanteric fractures treated with intramedullary nailing and to assess the influence of reduction quality on bone healing outcomes. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study including 190 patients with subtrochanteric fractures treated surgically between 2017 and 2024. After exclusions, 114 patients met the inclusion criteria (minimum six months of follow-up with complete clinical and radiographic data). Open reduction was defined as requiring an incision ≥3cm and the use of reduction instruments, with or without cerclage augmentation. Reduction quality was classified as acceptable or non-acceptable according to modified Baumgaertner criteria. Outcomes included delayed union (more than six months) and nonunion (more than nine months without progression). Statistical analyses included t tests, chi-square/Fisher's exact tests, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, with significance set at p<0.05. Results Of the 114 patients, 39 (34.2%) underwent open reduction and 75 (65.8%) closed reduction. Acceptable reduction was achieved in 88 patients (77.2%), significantly more often in the open group (94.9% vs. 68.0%; p=0.001). The mean time to union was shorter in the open reduction group (18.2 ± 7.5 vs. 21.2 ± 7.9 weeks), but this difference did not reach significance (p=0.055). Delayed union occurred in 22 patients (19.3%), without significant group differences (12.8% open vs. 22.7% closed; p=0.21). Nonunion was observed only in the closed reduction group (5.3%; p=0.14). Reduction quality was a strong predictor of outcomes: the group with acceptable reduction had a faster union (18.1 ± 6.5 vs. 28.3 ± 7.6 weeks, p<0.001), lower delayed union (10.2% vs. 50.0%; p<0.001), and absence of nonunion (0% vs. 15.4%; p=0.002) in comparison with the non-acceptable reduction group. Discussion Although open reduction achieved acceptable alignment more frequently, clinical outcomes such as delayed union and nonunion did not significantly differ between open and closed approaches. Instead, reduction quality emerged as the most decisive factor, strongly associated with faster healing and fewer complications. These findings suggest that achieving an acceptable reduction outweighs the influence of the chosen surgical approach. Conclusion In subtrochanteric femur fractures treated with intramedullary nailing, reduction quality is the key determinant of healing outcomes. Acceptable reductions, whether achieved through open or closed techniques, significantly reduce delayed union and nonunion. Surgeons should prioritize achieving acceptable alignment.

Indexed as

fracture healingintramedullary nailingopen and closed reductionquality of reductionsubtrocantheric fractures

Identifiers

PMID41552216
PMCPMC12811046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.