To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Standard vs. Long Cephalomedullary Nails for Unstable Extracapsular Proximal Femoral Fractures

Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
April 2023

Standard vs. Long Cephalomedullary Nails for Unstable Extracapsular Proximal Femoral Fractures

Vol: 303| Issue: 4| Number:12| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Complications of standard versus long cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of unstable extracapsular proximal femoral fractures: A randomized controlled trial.

Injury. 2023 Feb;54(2): 661-668.

Contributing Authors:
D Marti­-Gari­n F Fillat-Goma FA Marcano-Fernandez M Balaguer-Castro J Murias Alvarez R Pellejero J Sanchez Fernandez P Torner JM Munoz Vives

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

One hundred and eighty-two patients with unstable extracapsular proximal femoral fractures were randomized to receive a standard size cephalomedullary nail (n=93, 3 did not receive) or a long nail (n=89, 22 did not receive). The outcomes of interest included mechanical complications, the incidence of mortality, operative time, medical complications, and length of stay. Outcomes were assessed up to...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue