ArticleCurrent orthopaedic practice
Site of service of irrigation and debridement of open finger and hand fractures: a retrospective review of trends and outcomes.
Article in Current orthopaedic practice. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Irrigation and debridement (I&D) of open finger and hand fractures can be performed in the emergency department as opposed to the operating room (OR), though reports of postoperative infection rates vary greatly. The authors hypothesized that I&D of open finger and hand fractures in the OR would decrease over time. They also describe rates of postoperative infection, reoperation, readmission, and costs. Methods: A large nationwide administrative claims dataset was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who underwent I&D after open finger and hand fractures from 2007 to 2016. The incidence of I&D procedures performed outside the OR was reported and trends over the study period were assessed. Results: The proportion of open finger and hand fractures that underwent I&D outside the OR did not change significantly over time. Rates of postoperative surgical site infection, readmission, and reoperation were higher in the OR cohort at 90 days after the index stay. The OR cohort had greater total costs and out-of-pocket costs for the index stay. At 90 days, the OR cohort had greater total cost, but out-of-pocket costs were similar. Conclusions: Site of service for treatment of open finger and hand fractures has not significantly changed from 2007 to 2016. Given that total costs are significantly greater among patients undergoing I&D in the OR, prospective trials are needed to assess the safety of treating open finger and hand fractures outside of the OR to optimize management of these injuries. Level of Evidence: III.
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.