Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39036541›Full record

ArticleAdvances in orthopedics2024

Current Trends in the Surgical Treatment of Fibular Fractures: A National Database Study of Intramedullary vs. Plate Fixation Practice Patterns, Complications, and Cost.

Douglas Zhang, Audrey Litvak, Nicholas Lin, Sean Pirkle, Jason Strelzow, Kelly Hynes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in orthopedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

6 authors.

Douglas ZhangThe University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2600-7855
Audrey LitvakThe University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3376-1575
Nicholas LinThe University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9003-2916
Sean PirkleDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3038-1428
Jason StrelzowDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1072-1595
Kelly HynesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6761-6772

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Existing primary evidence comparing fibular intramedullary fixation (IMF) with traditional plate fixation (PF) for the treatment of distal fibular fractures remains limited by modest sample sizes. Using a large national database, this study aims to compare use rates, fracture patterns, patient characteristics, time to surgery, complication rates, and cost between fibular IMF and PF within the United States. Adults treated with fibular IMF or PF between October 2015 and October 2021 were identified within the PearlDiver Database. The ratio of IMF-treated to PF-treated patients was tracked temporally to compare use rates. Fracture patterns were determined using fracture diagnoses within one-month preceding surgery. Further comparisons of IMF- and PF-treated groups only included patients with at least 12 months of follow-up, and patients with upper tibia or tibia shaft fractures were excluded. An analysis of cohorts matched at a 1 : 4 (IMF: PF) ratio to control for risk factors was performed to compare time to surgery, complication rates (infection, nonunion, malunion, revision, hardware removal, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis), and cost. 39329 patients (2294 IMF and 37035 PF) were identified. IMF use trended upwards relative to PF use over time. Tibia and fibula shaft fractures were the most common injuries in IMF patients versus bimalleolar and trimalleolar fractures in PF patients. A higher proportion of IMF patients had open fractures. IMF patients were younger, with higher mean ECI, fewer female patients, and higher rates of CKD. Percutaneous approaches were more common among IMF patients. There were no significant differences in time to surgery or complication rates. IMF was less costly. The popularity of IMF trended upwards across the study period. IMF was used more commonly in injuries involving higher energy trauma and soft tissue disruption. Overall, IMF patients were younger with more comorbidities. When used in similar populations, IMF appears to be a cost-effective alternative to PF.

Identifiers

PMID39036541
PMCPMC11260212

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.