Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39497147›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024

Intramedullary nail fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation for treatment of adult diaphyseal forearm fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

McKenna W Box, Samuel D Stegelmann, Grayson A Domingue, Monica E Wells, Neil J Werthmann, Cornelis J Potgieter, John T Riehl

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Higher nonunion rates with locking plates compared to dynamic compression plates in forearm diaphyseal fractures: a multicenter study.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
    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

7 authors.

McKenna W BoxDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical City Denton, Denton, TX, USA. mckenna.box.med@gmail.com.
Samuel D StegelmannDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical City Denton, Denton, TX, USA.
Grayson A DomingueDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Monica E WellsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Neil J WerthmannDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical City Denton, Denton, TX, USA.
Cornelis J PotgieterTexas Christian University Anne Burnett Marion School of Medicine, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
John T RiehlDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical City Denton, Denton, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiaphyseal radius and ulna fractures require surgical fixation in adults. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) have been considered the gold standard of treatment. The recent development of an interlocking intramedullary nail (IMN) has provided an alternative treatment method for these fractures. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes and complications of IMN versus ORIF for diaphyseal forearm fractures in adults.

methodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched from January 1, 2000, through January 7, 2024. All English-language studies were included comparing radiographic and functional outcomes for interlocking IMN fixation and ORIF of diaphyseal forearm fractures in adults (age ≥ 18 years). Study demographics, fracture data, functional outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and complications were extracted. Study quality was determined using the ROBINS-I criteria for cohort studies and the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool for randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis of included studies used odds ratios and standardized mean difference when appropriate. Data was analyzed using subgroups of all diaphyseal fractures (including isolated radius or ulna fractures) and those with BBFFs.

resultsNine studies were included for analysis. There were 42 isolated radius, 80 isolated ulna, and 116 both-bone fractures (BBFF) treated with IMN and 36 radius, 81 ulna, and 116 both-bone fractures treated with ORIF. Compared to ORIF, IMN of diaphyseal forearm fractures appeared to be associated with shorter operative times and a lower overall complication rate. Time-to-union and the rate of nonunion following IMN were similar to ORIF. According to the Grace-Eversmann score, functional outcomes tended to be better following IMN, but DASH scores were similar between fixation strategies.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that interlocking IMN can be a safe and effective treatment option for simple and complex diaphyseal forearm fractures in adults. Further high-quality studies are needed to define indications for treating diaphyseal fractures with an interlocking IMN. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV.

Indexed as

DiaphysesFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryOpen Fracture ReductionRadius FracturesUlna FracturesAdultBone NailsFemaleFracture Fixation, InternalHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeBoth-bone fractureIntramedullary fracture fixationRadius fractureUlna fracture

Identifiers

PMID39497147
PMCPMC11533272

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.