ArticleInternational orthopaedics2022
Multiplanar fracture reducer versus manual traction in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures with intramedullary nails.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of the systemic immune inflammation index with failure after core decompression for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a prospective time-to-event analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Loss of walking independence one year after primary total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: incidence and risk prediction model.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Risk factors of preoperative deep vein thrombosis in patients with non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectThe purpose of this study was to propose a new traction device, a multiplanar fracture reducer (MFR), for the treatment of tibial shaft fractures with intramedullary nails (IMN). The efficiencies of the multiplanar fracture reducer and manual traction (MT) in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures with IMN were compared.
methodsFrom January 2019 to January 2020, a total of 79 patients were enrolled in this study, among whom 38 were treated with MFR while 41 were treated with MT. Their demographics and fracture characteristics, surgical data, and prognostic data between the two groups were compared.
resultsThe mean number of intra-operative fluoroscopies in the MFR group was less than that in the MT group (19.4 vs 21.2, p < 0.001); surgical procedures involving open reduction were more in the MT group than in MFR group (0 vs 5, p = 0.026); there were less assistants in the MFR group than in the MT group (1 vs 1.9, p < 0.001), while the average Lysholm Knee Function Score and knee flexion were 92.7 ± 2.0 and 128.8 ± 1.4 in the MFR group, and 91.9 ± 2.1 and 127.5 ± 1.8 in the MT group, respectively. Both LKFS and knee flexion in the MFR group were significantly better than those in the MT group (p = 0.032 and p < 0.001). The remaining data between the two groups were comparable.
conclusionMFR is a safe and effective device for the minimal invasive treatment of tibial shaft fractures fixed with IMN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34591157What 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.