ArticleSICOT-J2026
Comparing outcomes for retrograde intramedullary nailing vs. antegrade intramedullary nailing for Femoral fractures - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in SICOT-J, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistal femur fractures represent a small but clinically significant proportion of femoral injuries and are associated with high rates of complications, including non-union and revision surgery. Intramedullary nailing is a commonly employed fixation strategy, with both antegrade and retrograde approaches widely used in current practice. However, controversy persists regarding the optimal nail entry technique, particularly with respect to fracture healing, revision rates, and complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of antegrade versus retrograde intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft and distal femur fractures.
methodsThis review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251274011). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for comparative studies evaluating antegrade and retrograde intramedullary nailing. Retrospective and prospective human studies reporting outcomes of union, revision, refracture, malunion, delayed union, operative time, and complications were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed, with risk of bias evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsFive studies encompassing 1,479 patients were included, of whom 894 underwent antegrade nailing, and 585 underwent retrograde nailing. Antegrade nailing demonstrated a significantly lower rate of refracture following primary fixation compared with retrograde nailing (OR 31.41; 95% CI 4.45-221.80; p < 0.001). Revision rates were also significantly lower in the antegrade group (OR 1.76; 95% CI 1.21-2.58; p = 0.003). Retrograde nailing showed a higher overall union rate, although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.10). Rates of malunion, delayed union, non-union, operative time, and overall complications were comparable between groups, with moderate to substantial heterogeneity observed for several outcomes.
conclusionBoth antegrade and retrograde intramedullary nailing provide effective fixation for femoral shaft and distal femur fractures. Antegrade nailing is associated with significantly lower rates of refracture and revision, while retrograde nailing demonstrates comparable union outcomes. These findings suggest that antegrade nailing may offer advantages in selected patient populations, particularly elderly individuals, although the surgical approach should ultimately be guided by fracture pattern, patient factors, and surgeon expertise.
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.