ArticleBone & joint open2020
Soft tissue management in open tibial shaft fractures: A comparison of institutional preferences and resultant early clinical outcomes.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- External fixation versus intramedullary nailing for the management of open tibial fracture: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International orthopaedics · 2023Pooled it
- A solid and strong beginning.Bone & joint open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo compare results of institutional preferences with regard to treatment of soft tissues in the setting of open tibial shaft fractures.
methodsWe present a retrospective review of open tibial shaft fractures at two high-volume level 1 trauma centres with differing practices with regard to the acute management of soft tissues. Site 1 attempts acute primary closure, while site 2 prefers delayed closure/coverage. Comparisons include percentage of primary closure, number of surgical procedures until definitive closure, percentage requiring soft tissue coverage, and percentage of 90-day wound complication.
resultsOverall, there were 219 patients at site 1 and 282 patients at site 2. Differences in rates of acute wound closure were seen (168 (78%) at site 1 vs 101 (36%) at site 2). A mean of 1.5 procedures for definitive closure was seen at site 1 compared to 3.4 at site 2. No differences were seen in complication, nonunion, or amputation rates. Similar results were seen in a sub-analysis of type III injuries.
conclusionComparing outcomes of open tibial shaft fractures at two institutions with different rates initial wound management, no differences were seen in 90-day wound complications, nonunion rates, or need for amputation. Attempted acute closure resulted in a lower number of planned secondary procedures when compared with planned delayed closure. Providers should consider either acute closure or delayed coverage based on the injury characteristics, surgeon preference and institutional resources without concern that the decision at the time of index surgery will lead to an increased risk of complication.Cite this article:
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.