ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Comparative risk of ulnar nerve injury in pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a multicenter evaluation of Kirschner wire fixation techniques.
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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the risk of ulnar nerve injury in pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures treated with percutaneous lateral-pins, blinded-crossed-pins, and crossed-pins with a mini-incision.
methodsData were collected from 1705 children treated between January 2010 and December 2023 at four orthopedic centers in Colombia. The incidence of postoperative ulnar nerve injury was compared among three fixation techniques: lateral-pin, blinded-crossed-pin, and crossed-pin with a mini-incision.
resultsA statistically significant difference in nerve injury rates was observed between the lateral-pin and both blinded-crossed-pin and mini-incision crossed-pin techniques (p < 0.001), with the lateral-pin technique demonstrating a significantly lower risk of injury. No significant difference was found between the blinded-crossed-pin and mini-incision crossed-pin techniques (p = 0.67).
conclusionCrossed-pin fixation was associated with a higher incidence of ulnar nerve injury, regardless of the use of a mini-incision. The lateral-pin technique remains the safest option for minimizing iatrogenic nerve injury. There is insufficient evidence to support the mini-incision as a safer alternative to traditional crossed-pin fixation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39316133What 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.