ReviewEplasty2020
Rigid External Distractors in Midface Fractures: A Review of Relevant and Related Literature.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electro-spun piezoelectric PLLA smart composites as a scaffold on bone fracture: A review.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
33214802PMC7656155W3099879452What 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.