ArticleActa chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca2026
Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Four Different Proximal Femoral Nailing Systems in the Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures.
Article in Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of the studyThis study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of four different proximal femoral nailing systems-Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA), Dynamic Locked Trochanteric (DLT) nail, Intertan, and Talon Distalfix-used in the surgical treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures. The goal was to evaluate the differences between systems both statistically and in terms of clinical relevance. MATERIAL AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 309 patients who underwent PFN procedures between January 2015 and December 2019. Patients were categorized into four groups based on the type of nail used. Parameters assessed included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, fracture union time, Harris Hip Score, WOMAC score, reduction quality, and complication rates. Additionally, Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) values were calculated to assess the clinical significance of any observed differences.
resultsThe Talon Distalfix group demonstrated significantly lower operative time, blood loss, and fluoroscopy duration (all p < 0.001). Since these differences exceeded MCID thresholds, they were considered not only statistically significant but also clinically meaningful. No significant differences were observed among the groups in terms of functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score, WOMAC score), fracture union time, or reduction quality. The overall complication rate was 22.9%, with screw cut-out being the most common complication (14.2%). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the groups.
conclusionsThe Talon Distalfix nail was found to offer both statistically and clinically significant advantages in terms of shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and less fluoroscopy exposure. While functional outcomes and complication rates were similar across all groups, the findings suggest that implant design may play a decisive role in intraoperative parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42153817What 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.