Comparison of clinical outcomes with hip replacement versus PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of HR and PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. METHODS: We carried out this review according to the principle of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. The clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies (RCSs), and case-control studies involving HR and PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly from 2000 to 2020 were compared by searching Web of Science, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. The quality of the included cohort study (CS) lines was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The quality of the included RCT lines was evaluated using Jadad. Forest plots were drawn by RevMan5.4 software based on the results and the data were analyzed. RESULTS: After screening, a total of 9 articles were included, of which one was a clinical RCT and eight were RCSs with 1374 patients. The operative time of the PFNA group was shorter [WMD = 15.20; 95% CI (13.17, 17.23), P < .05] and the intraoperative blood loss was less [WMD = 178.81; 95% CI (97.24, 260.38), P < .05] than the HR group, while the first weight-bearing time of the HR group was shorter [WMD = -7.70; 95% CI (-10.54, -4.86), P < .05] than the PFNA group. There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay, HHS, postoperative orthopedic complications, and postoperative medical complications between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: With the development of HR technology and minimally invasive technology, the trauma caused by surgery is decreasing. Under the premise of improving perioperative management, such as optimizing the preoperative preparation and postoperative management, shortening the operative time, reducing intraoperative blood loss, and actively managing co-existing diseases, HR has more advantages than PFNA in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fractures.
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 | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".