Comparing Entry Points for Antegrade Nailing of Femoral Shaft Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal entry point for antegrade intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether there is a difference in operative parameters, healing, and functional outcome when comparing the greater trochanter (GT) and piriformis fossa (PF) entry points. A systematic search of multiple databases and 3 major orthopedic meetings (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Canadian Orthopaedic Association, and Orthopaedic Trauma Association) was conducted. Four studies (570 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Mean patient age was 34.5 years, and 60.4% were male. The GT entry point was associated with significantly shorter operative (mean difference [MD], -20.05 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI), -23.09 to -17.02]; P<.00001) and fluoroscopy times (MD, -24.55 seconds [95% CI, -43.23 to -5.86]; P=.01). There was no significant difference in nonunion (risk ratio [RR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.58]; P=.44) and delayed union rates (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.41 to 2.14]; P=.88) between the 2 entry points. Heterogeneity in outcome measures reported prevented pooled analysis of functional outcomes. This review supports the use of the GT entry point during antegrade nailing of femoral shaft fractures over the PF entry point, with regard to shorter operative and fluoroscopy times. Healing and complication rates were not related to the entry point. Further study is required to determine the effect of each entry point on the surrounding soft tissue structures and ultimately its impact on postoperative function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".