What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cohort. Population: unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures (n=173). Intervention: Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail (PFBN) vs. Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA). Primary outcome: implant failure (p=0.027).

What question did this study set out to answer?

To compare the clinical efficacy and implant survival of PFBN and PFNA in elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures.

July 23, 2026Scientific ReportsOpen Access

Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail linked to ~80% lower implant failure risk versus PFNA.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Does the Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail (PFBN) improve clinical efficacy and implant survival compared to the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) in elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures?

Population

173 elderly patients aged ≥ 65 years with unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures

Comparison

Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail (PFBN) vs Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA)

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

1 year

Key result

The Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail reduced implant failure compared to PFNA (4.2% vs. 20.8%, P=0.027), though differences in functional recovery and 1-year Harris Hip Score lacked clinical relevance.

Authors

XXXiaohui Xiong WLWeifei Lian TWTianwang Wu

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

PFBN was associated with lower implant failure but lacked clinical significance; leaves open need for RCTs to assess meaningful benefit.

Key Points

To compare the clinical efficacy and implant survival of PFBN and PFNA in elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures.
One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics in 173 enrolled patients.
Key outcomes analyzed included VAS pain scores, Harris Hip Scores, complications, and implant survival.
Patients aged ≥ 65 years with unstable intertrochanteric fractures (AO/OTA 31-A2.2 or higher) were included.
The PFBN group had significantly lower implant failure rates (4.2% vs. 20.8%, P = 0.027).
Patients in the PFBN group ambulated earlier postoperatively (P = 0.022).
At 6 months, the HHS was significantly higher in the PFBN group (P = 0.015), but differences were below clinical significance.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=173)

Structured PICO

Population

173 patients aged ≥ 65 years with unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures, analyzed using propensity score matching with 1-year follow-up.

Exposure

Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail (PFBN)

Comparator

Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA)

Outcome

Clinical efficacy (Visual Analogue Scale pain scores, Harris Hip Score), complications, and implant survivalpatient reported

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 4.2% vs 20.8%

p-value: p=0.027

PFBN reduces implant failure and allows earlier ambulation compared to PFNA in elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures, though long-term functional differences are not clinically significant.

Cite This Study

Xiong et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures (n=173). Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail (PFBN) vs. Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) was evaluated on implant failure (p=0.027). The Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail reduced implant failure compared to PFNA (4.2% vs. 20.8%, P=0.027), though differences in functional recovery and 1-year Harris Hip Score lacked clinical relevance.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a61b02ffaa9903c5116acd6 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-59814-y

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

July 23, 2026Scientific ReportsOpen Access

Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail linked to ~80% lower implant failure risk versus PFNA.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Population

173 elderly patients aged ≥ 65 years with unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures

Comparison

Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail (PFBN) vs Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA)

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

1 year

Key result

The Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail reduced implant failure compared to PFNA (4.2% vs. 20.8%, P=0.027), though differences in functional recovery and 1-year Harris Hip Score lacked clinical relevance.

Authors

XXXiaohui Xiong WLWeifei Lian TWTianwang Wu

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

PFBN was associated with lower implant failure but lacked clinical significance; leaves open need for RCTs to assess meaningful benefit.

Key Points

To compare the clinical efficacy and implant survival of PFBN and PFNA in elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures.
One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics in 173 enrolled patients.
Key outcomes analyzed included VAS pain scores, Harris Hip Scores, complications, and implant survival.
Patients aged ≥ 65 years with unstable intertrochanteric fractures (AO/OTA 31-A2.2 or higher) were included.
The PFBN group had significantly lower implant failure rates (4.2% vs. 20.8%, P = 0.027).
Patients in the PFBN group ambulated earlier postoperatively (P = 0.022).
At 6 months, the HHS was significantly higher in the PFBN group (P = 0.015), but differences were below clinical significance.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=173)

Structured PICO

Population

173 patients aged ≥ 65 years with unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures, analyzed using propensity score matching with 1-year follow-up.

Exposure

Proximal Femoral Bionic Nail (PFBN)

Comparator

Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA)

Outcome

Clinical efficacy (Visual Analogue Scale pain scores, Harris Hip Score), complications, and implant survivalpatient reported

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 4.2% vs 20.8%

p-value: p=0.027

Cite This Study

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a61b02ffaa9903c5116acd6 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-59814-y

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark