Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35747171›Full record

ArticleJB & JS open access

Open Tibial Fracture Treatment in Argentina: Reoperation Rates Following Surgical Management.

Germán Garabano, Madeline C MacKechnie, Sebastian Pereira, Kelsey Brown, Michael J Flores, Cesar A Pesciallo, Theodore Miclau, Fernando Bidolegui

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Germán GarabanoHospital Británico, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5936-0607
Madeline C MacKechnieOrthopaedic Trauma Institute, Institute for Global Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6619-9778
Sebastian PereiraHospital Sirio Libanes, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9475-3158
Kelsey BrownOrthopaedic Trauma Institute, Institute for Global Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2811-6326
Michael J FloresOrthopaedic Trauma Institute, Institute for Global Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6842-3152
Cesar A PescialloHospital Británico, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Theodore MiclauOrthopaedic Trauma Institute, Institute for Global Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1975-2061
Fernando BidoleguiHospital Sirio Libanes, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0502-2300

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purposes of the present study were (1) to characterize open tibial fractures and their treatment in trauma centers located across different regions of Argentina and (2) to evaluate the rates of and indications for reoperation after the surgical treatment of such fractures. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study evaluated open tibial fractures in Argentina that were operatively treated by experienced orthopaedic trauma surgeon-members of the Argentine Association of Orthopedic Trauma (AATO) between January 2015 and June 2020. Data were collected from 13 hospital databases; 8 hospitals were designated as "interior," and 5 hospitals were designated as "exterior." The study included 701 skeletally mature patients, all of whom had a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Information was collected on patient demographics, injury pattern and mechanism, fracture classification, treatment modality, reoperation rates, time between definitive fixation and reoperation, and indications for reoperation. Results: Seventy-six percent of presenting injuries were the result of a high-energy mechanism. Intramedullary nailing represented the most common type of fixation (88%). One hundred and fifty patients (21%) required reoperation. Delayed union/nonunion was the most common indication for reoperation in patients who had been previously treated with intramedullary nail fixation (31%; 39 of 126), and infection was the most common indication for reoperation in patients who had been treated with plate fixation (43%; 3 of 7). The time between the injury and definitive fixation was significantly different between the interior and exterior trauma centers (13.8 versus 4.7 days; p < 0.001), as was the time between definitive fixation and reoperation (69.3 versus 25.2 days; p = 0.004). The reoperation rates for the interior and exterior trauma centers were similar (20% versus 24%; p = 0.2). Infection, delayed union/nonunion, and implant removal were the most common indications for reoperation across groups. Conclusions: An improved understanding of the factors that influence treatment may help to guide future areas for improvement, establish educational goals, and create additional nationwide guidelines for open tibial fracture treatment. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID35747171
PMCPMC9208878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.