ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2022
Use of a Minimally Invasive Traction Repositor versus Conventional Manual Traction for the Treatment of Tibial Fractures: A Comparative Study from a Tertiary Hospital in China.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Closed reduction and intramedullary nail fixation of tibial fractures may not utilize a fracture table or reduction aids like a femoral distractor, and only manual traction will help aid the reduction process. This study aimed to describe and further investigate the effectiveness of an originally designed minimally invasive traction repositor (MITR) for the treatment of tibial fractures. Methods: From January 2018 to April 2021, a total of 119 eligible patients with tibial shaft fractures were included and retrospectively assigned to two groups according to different reduction methods: MITR group vs conventional manual traction (CMT) group. The baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable, including age, gender, BMI, residence, smoking history, drinking history, injury mechanism, fracture type, ASA, method of anesthesia, and surgical delay (all Results: All patients completed the follow-ups with an average of 18.5 months (range 12-42 months). The operation time, fracture reduction duration, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, and number of fluoroscopies were significantly decreased in the MITR group (all Conclusion: Compared with CMT, MITR facilitates the minimally invasive treatment of tibial fractures and has the advantages of operation time, fracture reduction duration, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, number of fluoroscopies, and satisfactory VAS and HSS scores.
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.