Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28314896›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2018

End cap versus no end cap in intramedullary nailing for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: influence on implant-related irritation.

H Frima, M H J Hulsmans, R M Houwert, U Ahmed Ali, E J M M Verleisdonk, C Sommer, M van Heijl

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Clavicle fractures in adults; current concepts.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

H FrimaDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Loëstrasse 170, 7000, Chur, Switzerland. herman.frima@ksgr.ch.
M H J HulsmansDepartment of Surgery, Diakonessen Hospital, Bosboomstraat 1, 3582 KE, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R M HouwertUtrecht Traumacenter, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
U Ahmed AliDepartment of Surgery, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E J M M VerleisdonkDepartment of Surgery, Diakonessen Hospital, Bosboomstraat 1, 3582 KE, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
C SommerDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Loëstrasse 170, 7000, Chur, Switzerland.
M van HeijlDepartment of Surgery, Diakonessen Hospital, Bosboomstraat 1, 3582 KE, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Diakonessenhuis hospital · NLKantonsspital Graubünden · CHUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeImplant-related irritation at the entry site is a known disadvantage of intramedullary nailing for clavicle fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare implant-related irritation rates of intramedullary nailing with or without an end cap for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures.

methodsTwo cohorts of patients treated with intramedullary nailing with or without an end cap were matched and compared. Primary outcome was patient-reported implant-related irritation. Secondary outcome parameters were complications.

resultsA total of 34 patients with an end cap were matched with 68 patients without an end cap. There was no difference in implant-related irritation (41 versus 53%, P = 0.26). Significantly more minor revisions were observed in the group without an end cap (15 versus 0%, P = 0.03). For complications requiring major revision surgery, significantly more implant failures were observed in the end cap group (12 versus 2%, P = 0.04). Regardless of their treatment, patients with complex fractures (AO/OTA B2-B3) reported significantly more medial irritation compared to patients with simple fractures (AO/OTA B1)(P = 0.02).

conclusionThe use of an end cap after intramedullary nailing for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures did not result in lower patient-reported irritation rates. Although less minor revisions were observed, more major revisions were reported in the end cap group. Based on the results of this study, no end caps should be used after intramedullary nailing for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. However, careful selection of simple fractures might be effective in reducing implant-related problems after intramedullary nailing.

Indexed as

Bone NailsFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryAdolescentAdultClavicleEquipment DesignFracture HealingFractures, BoneHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultClavicle fractureComplicationEnd capESINIntramedullary nailingIrritation

Identifiers

PMID28314896
OpenAlexW2595059893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.