Observational studyMedicine2026
Impact of antirotational implants on cutout risk in cephalomedullary fixation of intertrochanteric fractures in elderly: A retrospective comparative observational study.
Observational study in Medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the impact of 2 antirotational implants on cutout risk and mid-term clinical outcomes in elderly patients with intertrochanteric femur fractures. Overall, 107 patients (mean age, 80.10 years) who underwent intramedullary nailing for intertrochanteric femoral fractures between April 2018 and December 2020 were included in this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those treated with Antirotator Proximal Femoral Nail (A-PFN; group A) and those treated with Interclaw Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (group I). This study evaluated lag screw positioning using the Bosworth-Cleveland scale, reduction quality based on Baumgartner's criteria, tip-apex distance (TAD) values, cutoff values for TAD determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis, time from trauma to surgery, complications, and Harris Hip Score at the final follow-up. The mean follow-up durations were 18.4 ± 8.8 and 16.15 ± 4.72 months in groups A and I, respectively; operative times were 89.38 ± 30.45 and 71.15 ± 27.87 minutes, and time from trauma to surgery was 1.94 ± 1.52 and 1.56 ± 1.12 days, respectively. Nine patients required revision surgery because of implant failure: 2 nail breakages, 6 cutouts, and 1 periprosthetic fracture. No significant difference in complications was observed between the groups (P = .812). Baumgartner's criteria showed good results in 86.8% and 89.7% of groups A and I, respectively (P = .765). The Cleveland scale indicated good outcomes in 79.4% and 69.2% of patients, respectively (P = .237). Mean TAD was 23.6 ± 1.14 for group A and 25.7 ± 1.19 for group I (P = .432), with a receiver operating characteristic analysis cutoff of 31.3. Harris Hip Score showed a stronger functional advantage in group I, with 85.5 points versus 77.5 points in group A (P < .001). While both implants provided effective fixation, proper screw placement and anatomical reduction remained key factors in minimizing cutout risk, regardless of implant design.
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.