ArticleUnfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023
[Monteggia lesions and equivalent lesions in children].
Article in Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundMissed Monteggia lesions results in chronic luxation and deficits in the range of motion. The overall therapeutic goal is a quick and stable anatomical repositioning of the lesion. The prognosis of Monteggia lesions in comparison to its equivalents is better, especially with early diagnosis.
objectiveComparison of the types of lesion, treatment modalities, hospitalization, immobilization, movement deficits, perioperative complications and outcome. MATERIAL AND
methodsRetrospective study of 62 patients treated with acute Monteggia lesions and its equivalents during the period of 2009-2020.
results2 patients were treated with cast immobilization only, 11 with repositioning under general anesthesia, 39 with intramedullary nailing and 10 with screw osteosynthesis. The average observation period was 4.1 months. Patients with cast immobilization needed only a short hospitalization (2 days), patients with repositioning or osteosynthesis had longer hospitalization (3.4 or 4.3 days, respectively). Deficits of the range of motion did not appear in simple cast immobilization or intramedullary nailing without reduction; however, patients with closed reduction or screw osteosynthesis showed some degree of deficits (9% and 40%, respectively). Monteggia lesions needed shorter hospitalization than their equivalents (3.7 vs. 4.5 days) and had less deficits in the range of motion (7% vs. 21%).
conclusionMost patients were treated with osteosynthesis (79%). Patients with Monteggia lesions had a better outcome than patients with equivalent lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36048176What 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.