SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Intramedullary versus plate fixation of both bone forearm fractures in skeletally immature patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Sex-Based Anatomical Variations and Complication Risks in Pediatric Both-Bone Forearm Fractures: A Level of Evidence IV Retrospective Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth bone forearm fractures (BBFFs) are a common injury amongst the pediatric population. The main indications of surgical fixation are open, irreducible, or unstable fractures. The two most commonly used surgical techniques are closed or open reduction with intramedullary fixation (IMF) and open reduction with plate fixation (PF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine which fixation method is superior for BBFFs.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing IMF and PF. We extracted data on union rates, complications, early hardware removal rates, reoperation rates, and radiographic, clinical, and perioperative outcomes.
resultsSixteen studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 922 patients (539 IMF and 383 PF). Similar union rates were achieved by both fixation technique. IMF was associated with a higher incidence of symptomatic hardware, and early hardware removal. Better restoration of the radial bow was observed with the PF group, especially in older children and adolescents. The rate of excellent function was comparable between groups, whereas better cosmesis was reported with the IMF group. Despite shorter fluoroscopy time and immobilization time, PF demonstrated longer tourniquet time, operating time, and hospital stay compared to IMF.
conclusionsWe found no significant difference between IMF and PF in terms of union rates and functional outcomes taking in consideration the merits and demerits of each technique. High-quality randomized controlled trials are, therefore, necessary to determine the superiority of one fixation technique over the other. 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.