Antegrade versus retrograde nailing techniques and trochanteric versus piriformis intramedullary nailing entry points for femoral shaft fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are several different techniques commonly used to perform intramedullary (IM) nailing of the femur to fix femoral fractures. We sought to identify significant differences in outcomes of studies comparing 1) trochanteric and piriformis entry and 2) antegrade and retrograde entry in IM nailing of the femur. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane and Embase databases and the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons websites for comparative studies published from inception to November 2015. Criteria used to select articles for detailed review included use of antegrade and retrograde entry point or use of trochanteric and piriformis entry point for IM nailing of the femur in adult patients. Functional and technical outcomes were extracted from accepted studies. Results: We identified 483 potential studies, of which 52 were eligible. Of these, we included 13 publications and 2 abstracts (2 level I, 7 level II and 6 level III studies). Trochanteric entry significantly reduced operative duration by 14 min compared with piriformis entry (p = 0.030). Retrograde nailing had a greater risk of postoperative knee pain than antegrade nailing (p = 0.05). On the other hand, antegrade nailing had significantly more postoperative hip pain (p = 0.003) and heterotopic ossification (p < 0.001) than retrograde nailing. No significant differences in functional outcomes were observed. Conclusion: Although some significant differences were found, the varying quality of studies made recommendation difficult. Our meta-analysis did not confirm superiority of either antegrade over retrograde or trochanteric over piriformis entry for IM nailing of the femur. Level of evidence: Level III therapeutic.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".