ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Circular frame versus reamed intramedullary tibial nail in the treatment of grade III open tibial diaphyseal fractures.
Article 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. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGrade III open tibial diaphyseal fractures are challenging to treat and controversy exists on whether to treat them with an intramedullary nail (IMN) or a circular frame (CF). This study aims to compare outcomes for intramedullary nail and circular frame in the treatment of open tibial diaphyseal fractures. METHODOLOGY: Retrospective study at a major trauma center of all patients admitted with a grade III open tibial diaphyseal fracture between January 2016 and January 2022. The primary outcome measures were major complications: non-union, malunion, refracture, DBI and amputation. Secondary outcome measures were time to union and reoperation rates.
resultsFifty-five patients were included in the study, 32 patients in CF group and 23 patients in IMN group. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographics of patients in both groups. Major complications were recorded in 13 limbs (54%) in IMN group and in 18 limbs (56%) in CF group which were not statistically significant (p = 0.797). Deep bone infection rates were noted in 4 (12.5%) in the CF group, compared to 1 (4%) in IMN group; however, the result was not statistically significant (p = 0.240). Amputation rates as a result of infected non-unions were seen in 1 limb (4%) in IMN group and 2 limbs (6%) in CF group (p = 0.99). Median time to union was significantly shorter in IMN group at 30 weeks compared to 30 weeks for CF group (p = 0.04).
conclusionIMN should be the treatment of choice in the treatment of grade III open tibial diaphyseal fracture, but CF should be considered for delayed treatment and in patients with bone loss.
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.