ArticleActa ortopedica brasileira2022
INTERFERENCE OF EXTERNAL DAMAGE CONTROL FIXATION IN DEFINITIVE OSTEOSYNTHESIS.
Article in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 2022. 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.
- The First Decisions Matter: Integrating Stability, Biology, and Reconstruction in Open Fracture Care.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Indications for provisional external fixation prior to the definitive treatment of fractures are associated with the control of local and systemic damage and the impossibility of definitive osteosynthesis in the emergency. Objective: To identify complications associated with external fixation prior to definitive internal osteosynthesis. Methods: This is a comparative, prospective study (Level II). Inclusion criteria: patients treated as emergencies (November 2019 and March 2020) who underwent provisional external correction followed by definitive osteosynthesis. We look for signs of inadequacies in external correction and correlation with infections (erythema, hyperemia, fistulae in the path of the pins or surgical scars), systemic symptoms of infection, and radiographic parameters for treatment up to eight weeks after surgery. Results: The average time for conversion to definitive osteosynthesis was 15.9 days and 47 lower limbs and three upper limbs were fixed. Of the participants who had deep infections, three (6%) showed signs during initial treatment (external fixator) and nine (18%), after definitive internal osteosynthesis. We found no correlation between provisional external correction and complications in the definitive treatment with osteosynthesis. Conclusion: The use of temporary external fixation before definitive internal osteosynthesis in fractures of the appendicular skeleton failed to increase complication rates even if the path of the implants in both procedures overlapped.
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.