Comparing Intramedullary Nails versus Dynamic Hip Screws in the Treatment of Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures on Post-operative Rehabilitation Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare post-operative rehabilitation outcomes between two common treatments in patients who have suffered an intertrochanteric hip fracture: intramedullary nails vs dynamic hip screws. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science up to August 10, 2022. The inclusion criteria were defined as Population: adults (>18 years old); Interventions/Comparators: intramedullary nails and dynamic hip screws; Outcomes: function, quality of life and survival; and Study type: randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies. A meta-analysis was performed, and the fixed-effect model was selected to pool the data for homogeneous studies (I 2 < 50%) and the random effect model was selected for heterogeneity I 2 >50%. The P -value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A narrative synthesis was conducted on the remaining outcomes with insufficient data (ie, missing means, or standard deviations). Results 108 studies were included in the review. 42 studies had outcomes that were included in the meta-analysis. There were modest differences after sensitivity analysis for the Parker mobility score mean difference (MD) = 0.70, 95% CI [0.12, 1.28], T = 3.11, df = 5, P = 0.03, and Harris hip score (MD = 0.94, 95% CI [0.34, 1.54], T = 3.54, df = 9, P = 0.006) favoring the nails. There were no statistically significant differences in the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) (MD = −2.50, 95% CI [−6.46, 1.45], Z = 1.24, P = 0.22), the Barthel Index (MD = 2.66, 95% CI [−7.60, 12.92], T = 1,12, df = 2, P = 0.38), the generic quality of life (MD = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.08, 0.17], Z = 0.70, P = 0.49), the health-related quality of life (MD = −0.14, 95% CI [−3.57, 3.28], Z = 0.08, P = 0.93) or mortality (1.00, 95% CI [0.96, 1.03], Z = 0.16, P = 0.87) outcomes. Conclusion This review showed some differences in functional outcomes in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures favoring intramedullary nails over dynamic hip screws. There were no differences between the groups for quality of life and mortality outcomes. The narrative synthesis showed additional outcomes that warrant further investigations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".