Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2017
Comparison of Tibial Intramedullary Nailing Guided by Digital Technology Versus Conventional Method: A Prospective Study.
Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computer-assisted preoperative planning of bone fracture fixation surgery: A state-of-the-art review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Pulsed electromagnetic fields after intramedullary nailing of tibial fractures: a case control study.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
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
BACKGROUND This prospective study aimed to compare clinical effects of intramedullary nailing guided by digital and conventional technologies in treatment of tibial fractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty-two patients (mean age 43 years, 18 males and 14 females) who were treated for tibial fractures from October 2010 to October 2012 were enrolled. They were sequentially randomized to receive intramedullary nailing guided by either digital technology (digital group, n=16) or conventional technology (conventional group, n=16). The operation time, fluoroscopy times, fracture healing time, distance between the actual and planned insertion point, postoperative lower limb alignment, and functional recovery were recorded for all patients. RESULTS The mean operation time in the digital group was 43.1±6.2 min compared with 48.7±8.3 min for the conventional technology (P=0.039). The fluoroscopy times and distance between the actual and planned insertion point were significantly lower in the digital group than in the conventional group (both P<0.001). The accuracy rate of the insertion point was 99.12% by digital technology. No difference was found in fracture healing time and good postoperative lower limb alignment between the digital and conventional groups (P=0.083 and P=0.310), as well as the effective rate (100% vs. 87.50%, P=0.144). CONCLUSIONS Intramedullary nailing guided by digital technology has many advantages in treatment of tibial fractures compared to conventional technology, including shorter operation time, reduced fluoroscopy times, and decreased distance between the actual and planned insertion point of the intramedullary nail.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.