Comparative Efficacy of Interlocking Intramedullary Nails and Percutaneous Plate Implantation in the Treatment of Femoral Shaft Fractures: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Interlocking intramedullary nailing and percutaneous plate implantation are commonly used techniques in the treatment of femoral shaft fractures. This study aimed to determine the most appropriate and effective treatment strategy between interlocking intramedullary nails and percutaneous plate implantation by analyzing and summarizing the available evidence. METHODS: Relevant articles published from the date of database construction in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane to 2024 were searched and downloaded according to PRISMA 2020. These studies were screened following pre-established inclusion criteria, and the data were extracted. Methodological quality assessment for retrospective studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, whereas Review Manager Software was used for methodological quality assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and statistical analysis. RESULTS: Only 13 studies containing 1061 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Femoral shaft fractures treated with interlocking intramedullary nailing had shorter operative and fluoroscopic time and less estimated blood loss. Pediatric patients treated with interlocking intramedullary nails had less estimated blood loss and shorter healing time. Interlocking intramedullary nailing group in the retrospective study was associated with shorter operative time and less blood loss, whereas, in the randomized controlled trial (RCT) study, it was associated with less blood loss and shorter healing time. CONCLUSIONS: Interlocking intramedullary nailing is more advantageous in treating femoral shaft fractures and is a more appropriate option for treating femoral shaft fractures in pediatric patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42024564563.
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 | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.059 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".