ArticleJournal of children's orthopaedics2019
Conscious sedation and reduction of fractures in the paediatric population: an orthopaedic perspective.
Article in Journal of children's orthopaedics, 2019. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized clinical trial of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus inhaled nitrous oxide for procedural sedation and analgesia in children.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Trial
- Use of paralytic agents during the operative treatment of type III supracondylar humerus fractures in children: A single-center investigation and survey of Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America members.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2024Article
- Closed reduction and cast immobilization of overriding distal forearm fractures under nitrous oxide as conscious sedation without the use of imaging control.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeClosed reduction under conscious sedation in the emergency department (ED) has been demonstrated to provide cost-effective, timely care. There has been little research into the efficacy of conscious sedation and reduction from an orthopaedic trauma perspective. This study describes the epidemiology and outcomes associated with fracture conscious sedation and reduction in our level I paediatric ED.
methodsAll fracture patients presenting overnight to our level I trauma centre ED between 01 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 were identified. Patient records were reviewed to determine diagnoses, treatments and outcomes. The rate of repeat intervention after successful conscious sedation and reduction and rate of changes in management in which the orthopaedic resident's overnight management plan to provide procedural sedation was altered to surgical intervention after morning case review rounds was calculated.
resultsConscious sedation and reduction was performed on a total of 386 patients covering ten fracture types during the course of our study, with distal radius fractures (n = 167, 43.3%) comprising the majority of cases. A total of 53 cases (13.7%, 53/386) lost alignment and required repeat intervention, consisting of 33 cases (8.5%, 33/386) that required repeat surgery and 5.2% (20/386) that required cast wedging. In all, 12 patients (3.1%, 12/386) initially reduced under conscious sedation required a change in management and surgical intervention. There were five cases of growth arrest and two cases of malunion.
conclusionsConscious sedation and reduction provides an alternative to general anaesthesia for many paediatric trauma injuries without compromising patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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.