ReviewCureus2026
Helical Blade Versus Lag Screw Fixation in Cephalomedullary Nailing of Unstable Trochanteric Fractures: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trochanteric (intertrochanteric) hip fractures are among the most common fragility fractures in older adults. Cephalomedullary nailing (CMN) has become the standard treatment strategy for unstable fracture patterns (AO/OTA 31-A2/A3), largely replacing the sliding hip screw (dynamic hip screw, DHS) for this indication. Two proximal fixation designs are in widespread use within CMN systems: the traditional lag screw, which relies on thread engagement in cancellous bone, and the helical blade, which is inserted by impaction, compacting surrounding cancellous bone rather than removing it. This narrative review synthesises the clinical, biomechanical, registry-based, and health-economic evidence comparing helical blade and lag screw fixation. This review also discusses how these findings relate to the wider evidence on implant selection, technical factors influencing fixation success, and complications following CMN, including peri-implant fracture, nonunion, and salvage arthroplasty. Across systematic reviews, meta-analyses, cadaveric biomechanical studies, and large registry cohorts, no consistent superiority of either proximal fixation device has been demonstrated with respect to overall fixation failure, including cut-out. Failure patterns nonetheless differ between implant designs. Medial perforation occurs exclusively with helical blades in the largest single-centre series to report this distinction, while superior migration is more commonly observed with lag screws. Helical blade performance may additionally vary with patient frailty and bone quality. Health-economic evidence continues to favour extramedullary fixation for stable fracture patterns and CMN for unstable fractures. A tip-apex distance greater than 25 mm remains the most reproducible predictor of fixation failure regardless of implant type, while reduction quality and implant positioning are consistently more important determinants of outcome than proximal fixation device selection. Implant choice should therefore be individualised according to patient frailty, bone quality, and surgeon familiarity.
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.