Faculty mentor/PI email address

abedin@rowan.edu

Keywords

Orthopedics, Femur Fractures, Intramedullary Nailing, Union Rate

Date of Presentation

5-6-2026 12:00 AM

Poster Abstract

Background:

Antegrade and retrograde intramedullary nailing are widely used for femoral fractures, yet their relative advantages across fracture locations remain debated. This study compares union rates, time to union, malunion, and functional outcomes between approaches, stratified by AO/OTA classification.

Methods:

A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus (2015 to 2025) was performed. Studies reporting outcomes of antegrade and/or retrograde nailing for proximal (31), diaphyseal (32), and distal (33) femoral fractures were included. Data on demographics, fracture classification, fixation method, and outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with subgroup analysis by fracture location.

Results:

Thirty-nine studies (N = 2392) met inclusion criteria. In diaphyseal fractures (AO 32), union rates were comparable between antegrade and retrograde nailing (82.7% vs 85.1%), with similar time to union (20.2 vs 20.0 weeks). Malunion rates were higher in the antegrade group (11.6% vs 6.3%), though differences were not statistically significant. In proximal fractures (AO 31), antegrade nailing demonstrated higher union rates (95.5% vs 76.9%), although retrograde data were limited. In distal fractures (AO 33), retrograde nailing predominated, with union rates of 88.7%, while antegrade data were limited but demonstrated 100% union in a single study.

Conclusions:

Antegrade and retrograde nailing demonstrate equivalent outcomes for femoral shaft fractures. Evidence for proximal and distal fractures remains limited and asymmetric. Surgical approach should be individualized, with further prospective studies needed to define optimal strategies across fracture subtypes.

Disciplines

Medicine and Health Sciences | Musculoskeletal System | Wounds and Injuries

Share

COinS
 
May 6th, 12:00 AM

Comparative Analysis of Antegrade and Retrograde Nailing for Proximal, Shaft, and Distal Femur Fractures

Background:

Antegrade and retrograde intramedullary nailing are widely used for femoral fractures, yet their relative advantages across fracture locations remain debated. This study compares union rates, time to union, malunion, and functional outcomes between approaches, stratified by AO/OTA classification.

Methods:

A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus (2015 to 2025) was performed. Studies reporting outcomes of antegrade and/or retrograde nailing for proximal (31), diaphyseal (32), and distal (33) femoral fractures were included. Data on demographics, fracture classification, fixation method, and outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with subgroup analysis by fracture location.

Results:

Thirty-nine studies (N = 2392) met inclusion criteria. In diaphyseal fractures (AO 32), union rates were comparable between antegrade and retrograde nailing (82.7% vs 85.1%), with similar time to union (20.2 vs 20.0 weeks). Malunion rates were higher in the antegrade group (11.6% vs 6.3%), though differences were not statistically significant. In proximal fractures (AO 31), antegrade nailing demonstrated higher union rates (95.5% vs 76.9%), although retrograde data were limited. In distal fractures (AO 33), retrograde nailing predominated, with union rates of 88.7%, while antegrade data were limited but demonstrated 100% union in a single study.

Conclusions:

Antegrade and retrograde nailing demonstrate equivalent outcomes for femoral shaft fractures. Evidence for proximal and distal fractures remains limited and asymmetric. Surgical approach should be individualized, with further prospective studies needed to define optimal strategies across fracture subtypes.

 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.