Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37596464›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024

Indications for replantation and factors that predict success.

Dana Bregman, Luke Nicholson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

Dana BregmanDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA. danabregmanmd@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6834-2571
Luke NicholsonDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the advent of replantation techniques, there has been uneven progress in terms of success-even considering whether success is defined as continued perfusion of the digit or long term functional outcomes. Early enthusiasm and success have not been maintained despite increasing familiarity with microsurgical techniques and greater understanding of how to optimize outcomes for the individual components of replantation such as tendon repair, nerve repair, and osteosynthesis. Practitioners participating in the care of patients undergoing replantation should be familiar with the history and current understanding of both the indications and contraindications for the procedure, post-operative rehabilitation, and factors contributing to functional outcomes. A review of the literature from the first publications on the topic demonstrates evolution in practice and understanding of which patients should be indicated for replantation. Indications can be considered in three broad categories: injury factors, patient factors, and care context factors. These factors intersect with one another and can inform the surgeon pre-operatively regarding the most likely outcome for a given patient. This insight is critical to discuss pre-operatively with the patient in order to make a shared decision about how to manage their injury.

Indexed as

Amputation, TraumaticFinger InjuriesReplantationHumansMicrosurgeryTreatment OutcomeContraindicationsHand surgeryIndicationsMicrosurgeryReplantationRevascularization

Identifiers

PMID37596464
PMCPMC11490447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.