ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
External fixator versus elastic stable intramedullary nail for treatment of metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction fractures of the pediatric distal femur: a case-control study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
- Epidemiology and management of pediatric femoral fractures at a level I trauma center: a 10-year retrospective monocentric study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral methods have been used for the treatment of pediatric distal femoral fractures, such as elastic stable intramedullary nail (ESIN), external fixator (EF) and plate osteosynthesis, but there has been no consensus about the optimal method. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome between EF and ESIN techniques used in metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction (MDJ) fractures of the pediatric distal femur.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed operatively treated MDJ fractures of pediatric distal femur between January 2015 and January 2022. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics, injury and data of radiography. All of the patients were divided into EF and ESIN groups according to the operation techniques. Malalignment was defined as more than 5 degrees of angular deformity in either plane. Clinical outcomes were measured by Flynn scoring system.
resultsThirty-eight patients were included in this study, among which, 23 were treated with EF, and 15 with ESIN. The mean follow-up time was 18 months (12-24 months). At the final follow-up, all of the fractures were healed. Although there were no statistical differences between the two groups in demographic data, length of stay, estimated blood loss (EBL), rate of open reduction, time to fracture healing and Flynn score, the EF was superior to ESIN in operative time, fluoroscopic exposure and time to partial weight-bearing. The EF group had a significantly higher rate of skin irritation, while the ESIN had a significantly higher rate of malalignment.
conclusionEF and ESIN are both effective methods in the treatment of MDJ fractures of the pediatric distal femur. ESIN is associated with lower rates of skin irritation. However, EF technique has the advantages of shorter operative time, reduced fluoroscopic exposure, and shorter time to partial weight-bearing, as well as lower incidence of malalignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 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.