Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33214802›Full record

ReviewEplasty2020

Rigid External Distractors in Midface Fractures: A Review of Relevant and Related Literature.

Zachary Gala, Jordan Halsey, Samuel Kogan, Ian Hoppe, Frank S Ciminello, Mark S Granick

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eplasty, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 86% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zachary GalaDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ.
Jordan HalseyDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ.
Samuel KoganDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ.
Ian HoppeDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS.
Frank S CiminelloDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ.
Mark S GranickDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USRutgers New Jersey Medical SchoolUniversity of Mississippi Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLiterature discussing the use of rigid external distraction devices in midfacial trauma is limited. Rigid external distraction devices have been described for use in craniofacial surgery, allowing for distraction and stabilization of bony segments. In complex facial trauma, bony fragments are often comminuted and unstable, making traditional approaches with internal fixation difficult. Moreover, these approaches require subperiosteal dissection, limiting blood supply that is important for bone healing.

objectiveThe goal of this study was to evaluate the role of rigid external distraction devices for the treatment of complex facial trauma.

methodsWe performed a literature review of rigid external distraction devices, as relevant both for facial trauma and for other craniofacial indications, to better elucidate their use and efficacy in complex facial fractures.

resultsThe review revealed only 2 articles explicitly describing rigid external distraction devices for facial trauma, while 6 other articles describing its use for other craniofacial cases. An important benefit associated with the use of rigid external distraction devices is their ability to provide controlled traction of bony segments while also allowing for movement as needed for fracture reduction. Various articles describe performing internal fixation following rigid external distraction device usage, while others emphasize that internal fixation is not necessarily indicated if the rigid external distraction device is left intact long enough to ensure bony healing. One potential setback described is unfamiliarity with using the rigid external distraction device, which can preclude its use by many surgeons. In addition, the literature review did not provide any uniform guidelines or recommendations about how long rigid external distraction devices should remain intact.

conclusionBased on relevant literature, rigid external distraction devices have been shown to be useful in the stabilization and treatment of complex facial fractures. Further studies should be conducted to better elucidate the specific indications for rigid external distraction devices in complex facial trauma.

Indexed as

facial traumamidface fracturespanfacial injuryREDrigid external distraction

Identifiers

PMID33214802
PMCPMC7656155
OpenAlexW3099879452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.