Comparison of outcomes after different methods of fixation for extracapsular hip fractures: An observational study
Injury, ISSN: 0020-1383, Vol: 52, Issue: 10, Page: 3031-3035
2021
- 3Citations
- 22Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations3
- Citation Indexes2
- CrossRef1
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures22
- Readers22
- 22
Article Description
Optimal management of intertrochanteric fractures using either sliding hip screws (SHS) or Intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation has long been disputed and the optimal length of a 'short nail' has yet to be clarified. Our aim was to investigate functional outcomes in patients who have undergone either sliding hip screw fixation or intramedullary fixation using varied lengths of nails to assess potential superiority. We retrospectively reviewed data from consecutive patients with trochanteric hip fractures between January 2010 - July 2019. Fracture fixation was performed with four different devices; SHS, 220mm and 175mm Targon PFT nails or 180mm Short Affixus Hip Fracture Nails. There was no significant difference in the patient demographics in each treatment group. Main outcome measures: Patients were followed up for 1 year post operatively to determine if there were differences in mobility and pain with the different fixation methods. There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between methods of fixation. Overall Intramedullary nail fixation resulted in an improved mean pain score compared to SHS (mean difference 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 - 0.39, p=0.0005). On sub-analysis this was only statistically significant in 220mm Targon nails (mean difference 0.35, CI 0.19-0.57, p=0.0010) and not for the other two nails. In addition, there was a significant difference in mobility score (mean difference 0.38, CI 0.12-0.63, p=0.0036). On sub-analysis this was only statistically significant favouring the for 220 mm Targon nail (mean difference 0.57, CI 0.27-0.87, p=0.0002). We advise caution in interpreting the results of studies between different nails and SHS, as not all nails appear to be the same. Design features of modern nails such as length, proximal diameter, the use of a compression screw, lag screw interface within the nail and valgus inclination may all play a role in functional outcomes.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138321001534; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.02.050; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85101600798&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33642086; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0020138321001534; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.02.050
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know