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

Lower blood loss with cancellous screws compared to sliding hip screws for femoral neck fractures

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
November 2019

Lower blood loss with cancellous screws compared to sliding hip screws for femoral neck fractures

Vol: 8| Issue: 11| Number:33| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Meta-analysis/Systematic Review
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Sliding hip screws versus cancellous screws for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019 Oct;29(7):1383-1393.

Contributing Authors:
MSA Shehata MM Aboelnas AN Abdulkarim AR Abdallah H Ahmed J Holton P Consigliere AA Narvani AA Sallam JA Wimhurst MA Imam

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

Synopsis

10 studies (1934 patients) were included in this meta-analysis comparing sliding hip screws and cancellous screws for the surgical treatment of femoral neck fractures. Outcomes of interest included operative duration, intra-operative blood loss, nonunion, avascular necrosis, re-operation, infection, fracture healing, hip function scores, medical complications, hip pain and mortality rate. Results ...

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