SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2017
Meta-analysis suggests that the electromagnetic technique is better than the free-hand method for the distal locking during intramedullary nailing procedures.
Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distortion-Free Magnetic Tracking of Metal Instruments in Image-Guided Interventions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Reduced Surgical Time and Higher Accuracy of Distal Locking with the Electromagnetic Targeting System in Humeral Shaft Intramedullary Nailing.Orthopaedic surgery · 2020Article
- Electromagnetic distal targeting system does not reduce the overall operative time of the intramedullary nailing for humeral shaft fractures.Journal of orthopaedics · 2018Article
- Fluoroscopic freehand and electromagnetic-guided targeting system for distal locking screws of humeral intramedullary nail.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness and accuracy of electromagnetic technique (EM) verses free-hand method (FH) for distal locking in intramedullary nailing procedure. MATERIAL AND
methodsRelevant original studies were searched in Medline, Pubmed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Cochrane Central Database (all through October 2015). Comparative studies providing sufficient data of interest were included in this meta-analysis. The Stata 11.0 was used to analyze all data.
resultsEight studies involving 611 participants were included, with 305 in EM group and 306 in FH group. EM outperformed FH with reduced distal locking time of 4.1 minutes [standardized mean difference (SMD), 1.61; 95 % confidence interval (95 %CI), 0.81 to 2.41] and the reduced fluoroscopy time of 25.3 seconds (SMD, 2.64; 95 %CI, 2.12 to 3.16). Regarding the accuracy of distal screw placement, no significant difference was observed between two techniques (OR, 2.39; 95 %CI, 0.38 to 15.0). There was a trend of longer operative time in FH versus EM by 10 minutes (79.0 and 69.0 minutes), although the difference was not statistically significant (SMD, 0.341; 95 % CI, -0.02 to 0.703).
conclusionsThe existing evidence suggests EM technique is a better alternative for distal locking in intramedullary nailing procedure, and this might aid in the management of diaphyseal fractures in lower extremities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27255893What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.