Antegrade vs Retrograde Intra-Medullary Nailing in Femoral Shaft Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Femoral shaft fractures are one of the most prevalent fractures found in clinical practice. Numerous operative and non-operative options are readily available for the treatment of such fractures with intra-medullary nailing being the gold standard. To date, no consensus has been reached favoring one approach over the other. Thus, this meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes between an antegrade and retrograde intra-medullary nailing for the treatment of femoral shaft fractures. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar (page 1-20), and Embase were searched till January 2024. The clinical outcomes evaluated were the incidence of adverse events, reoperations, hip and knee pain, and surgery-related parameters. Results: Higher rates of hip pain, and heterotopic ossification (p=0.0003, and p=0.0002 respectively) was observed with antegrade nailing. However, a higher rate of knee pain (p=0.02) was appreciated in retrograde nailing. There was no statistically significant difference in the remaining analyzed outcomes such as operative time, reoperation rate or other complications. Conclusion: Despite a higher rate of heterotopic ossification using the antegrade nailing technique, both the antegrade and retrograde nailing techniques yield overall similar outcomes. Therefore, the decision to choose one or the other should be based on patient-related factors, and the surgeon's experience and preference.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".