Comparative efficacy of proximal femoral nail vs dynamic condylar screw in treating unstable intertrochanteric fractures

Figure 1  Flowchart of study search and inclusion criteria.

Figure 2 Risk. A: Risk of bias graphical representation; B: Risk of bias of included trials.

Figure 3  Quality assessment of observational studies as assessed by the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.

Figure 4 Effectiveness metrics comparing proximal femoral nails vs dynamic condylar screws by forest plot. A: Impact on earlier fracture union time in wk; B: Effect on the amount of blood transfused in units; C: Influence on hospital stay duration in d; D: Impact on the length of the operation in min. 95%CI: 95% Confidence interval; DCS: Dynamic condylar screws; PFN: Proximal femoral nails.

Figure 5 Reduction type comparison between proximal femoral nails and dynamic condylar screws by forest plot. A: Open reduction; B: Closed reduction. 95%CI: 95% Confidence interval; DCS: Dynamic condylar screw; PFN: Proximal femoral nail.

Figure 6 Safety and adverse events comparison between proximal femoral nails and dynamic condylar screws by forest plot. A: Nonunion; B: Implant-related complications; C: Revision surgery or reoperation; D: Infection. 95%CI: 95% Confidence interval; DCS: Dynamic condylar screw; PFN: Proximal femoral nail.