ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
FHR vs. PFNA for femoral neck basicervical fractures in elderly patients 60 years or older: a cost-effectiveness analysis from hospitals in western China under the background of medical insurance.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Femoral neck basicervical fractures are an unstable subtype with high surgical failure risk. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of PFNA and FHR in elderly patients (60 years or older) to guide rational treatment amid aging and limited medical resources. Methods: A retrospective study included 76 patients (May 2022-May 2025) who underwent PFNA or FHR. 1:1 PSM balanced baseline characteristics (age, gender, pre-injury FRS, Garden classification, comminution, bone quality, AO/OTA subtype). Total hospital costs were collected to calculate CER and QALY-based ICER. FRS and EQ-5D-5L scales evaluated function and QALYs, with sensitivity analyses verifying robustness. Results: After PSM, 28 matched pairs were analyzed. PFNA had a lower CER (751.74 vs. 874.60 yuan/point, Conclusion: For elderly adults 60 years or older with femoral neck basicervical fractures, both PFNA and FHR can achieve favorable clinical outcomes. PFNA is more cost-effective overall, while FHR offers faster early functional recovery. Surgical decision-making should balance these factors, along with patient-specific characteristics. For patients prioritizing early independent ambulation and reducing caregiver burden, FHR is a suitable choice; for those focusing on cost-effectiveness and long-term functional recovery, PFNA is preferred. Future prospective multicenter studies with longer follow-up (5 years or longer) are needed to evaluate long-term revision costs and further validate these findings, while accounting for indirect costs and minimizing selection bias.
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.