Key result
Lateral decubitus PFN cuts setup time ~69% vs supine but increases need for open reduction.
Why the study?
Patient positioning for proximal femoral nailing in unstable intertrochanteric fractures remains controversial and may influence operative efficiency, radiation exposure, and reduction quality.
Does lateral decubitus positioning without traction improve setup time, radiation exposure, and operative time compared to supine traction-table positioning in geriatric patients undergoing PFN for unstable intertrochanteric fractures?
RCT
randomized
Does lateral decubitus positioning without traction improve setup time, radiation exposure, and operative time compared to supine traction-table positioning in geriatric patients undergoing PFN for unstable intertrochanteric fractures?
Absolute Event Rate: 13.73% vs 43.73%
p-value: p=<0.001
Lateral decubitus positioning for proximal femoral nailing improves setup efficiency and reduces radiation exposure, but increases the need for open reduction and blood loss compared to supine positioning.
Lateral positioning offers efficiency gains for PFN; extends RCT evidence on trade-offs versus supine traction in geriatric patients.**[[1]](https://www.sicot-j.org/articles/sicotj/full_html/2026/01/sicotj260007/sicotj260007.
BACKGROUND: Patient positioning for proximal femoral nailing (PFN) in unstable intertrochanteric fractures remains controversial and may influence operative efficiency, radiation exposure, and reduction quality. This study compared lateral decubitus PFN without traction versus the conventional supine traction-table technique in geriatric patients. METHODS: This prospective randomized comparative study enrolled patients aged >60 years with AO/OTA A2 unstable intertrochanteric fractures who were randomized to supine traction-table PFN (Group A) or lateral decubitus PFN on a radiolucent table (Group B). Primary outcomes were setup time, fluoroscopy (radiation) exposure, and operative time. Secondary outcomes included blood loss, need for open reduction, neck-shaft angle (NSA), tip-apex distance (TAD), and modified Baumgartner reduction quality. RESULTS: Setup time was markedly shorter with lateral positioning (13.73 ± 2.26 vs 43.73 ± 6.19 min; P < 0.001), and radiation exposure was lower (60.53 ± 15.98 vs 68.48 ± 14.65 s; P = 0.023). Blood loss was higher in the lateral group (328.75 ± 84.65 vs 288.75 ± 48.68 mL; P = 0.011), and open reduction was more frequent (57.5% vs 17.5%; P < 0.001). Operative time was comparable (78.53 ± 15.13 vs 74.48 ± 8.56 min; P = 0.145). NSA (135.88 ± 5.94 vs 136.12 ± 6.27°; P = 0.864), TAD (23.58 ± 2.14 vs 23.15 ± 1.73 mm; P = 0.331), and reduction quality (good: 90% in both; P = 1.000) did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Lateral decubitus PFN without traction improved setup efficiency and reduced radiation exposure while maintaining comparable radiographic outcomes, at the expense of more frequent open reduction and modestly higher blood loss.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ebied et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in AO/OTA A2 unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Lateral decubitus proximal femoral nailing (PFN) without traction vs. Supine traction-table PFN was evaluated on Setup time (minutes) (p=<0.001). Lateral decubitus PFN without traction reduced setup time (13.73 vs 43.73 min; P<0.001) and radiation exposure compared to supine positioning, but increased the need for open reduction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: