↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of a twin interlocking derotation and compression screw cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) with a single screw derotation cephalomedullary nail (proximal femoral nail antirotation): a…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of a twin interlocking derotation and compression screw cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) with a single screw derotation cephalomedullary nail (proximal femoral nail antirotation): a systematic review and meta-analysis for intertrochanteric fractures
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13018-018-0749-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leo Nherera, Paul Trueman, Alan Horner, Tracy Watson, Alan J. Johnstone

Abstract

Intertrochanteric hip fractures are common and devastating injuries especially for the elderly. Surgical treatment is the optimal strategy for managing intertrochanteric fractures as it allows early rehabilitation and functional recovery. The relative effects of internal fixation strategies for intertrochanteric fracture after operation remain limited to relatively small studies which create uncertainty in attempts to establish evidence-based best practice. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to assess the clinical effectiveness of two commonly used intramedullary devices: a twin screw integrated cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) versus a single screw cephalomedullary nail (proximal femoral nail antirotation) in patients with intertrochanteric fractures. The following outcomes were considered: revisions, implant-related failures, non-unions, pain, Harris Hip Score and intraoperative outcomes. Odds ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals in brackets are reported. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, two randomised controlled trials and four observational studies enrolling 970 patients with mean age of 77 years, and 64% of patients were female. There was a statistically significant difference (p value < 0.05) for revisions OR 0.27 (0.13 to 0.56), implant-related failures OR 0.16 (0.09 to 0.27) and proportion of patients complaining of pain OR 0.50 (0.34 to 0.74). There was no difference in non-unions and Harris Hip Score (p value > 0.05). There was a significant difference in blood loss and fluoroscopy usage in favour of PFNA, whilst no difference in operating times were observed between the two devices. Our meta-analysis suggests that a twin screw integrated cephalomedullary nail InterTAN is clinically more effective when compared to a single screw cephalomedullary nail proximal femoral nail antirotation resulting in fewer complications, fewer revisions and fewer patients complaining of pain. No difference has been established regarding non-unions and Harris Hip Score. Intraoperative outcomes favour PFNA with less blood loss and fluoroscopy usage. Further studies are warranted to explore the cost-effectiveness of these and other implants in managing patients with intertrochanteric fractures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Other 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 18 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Engineering 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 20 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2022.
All research outputs
#7,356,372
of 23,189,371 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#316
of 1,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,527
of 331,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,189,371 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,697 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.