ReviewCureus2024
Impact of Surgical Timing on Fracture Healing in Tibial Shaft Injuries: A Comparative Review of Intramedullary Nailing Techniques.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Salvage of a Broken Magnetic Tibia Nail with Plate Fixation Without Nail Removal: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Intramedullary nail prior to flap coverage may not increase complications in Gustilo-Anderson Grade IIIB and IIIC open tibial fractures: A retrospective study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Review
- Factors associated with decline in ambulatory ability following intramedullary nailing of 42A-C diaphyseal tibia fractures.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Functional Outcomes Following Surgical and Conservative Management of Distal Tibia Shaft Fractures: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tibial shaft fractures are a prevalent and challenging orthopedic injury, often resulting from high-energy trauma. Optimal management of these fractures is crucial to prevent complications such as nonunion, malunion, and prolonged functional impairment. Intramedullary nailing (IMN) is widely regarded as the gold standard for treating these injuries due to its ability to provide stable fixation, preserve soft tissues, and enable early mobilization. However, the timing of surgical intervention remains a topic of ongoing debate. Early surgical intervention, defined as surgery within 24-48 hours of injury, is advocated for its potential to reduce hospital stay, facilitate early mobilization, and decrease the risk of secondary complications such as compartment syndrome. Conversely, delayed intervention allows for patient stabilization and reduction of soft tissue swelling, potentially lowering the risk of infection and other complications. This comprehensive review aims to evaluate the impact of surgical timing on fracture healing outcomes in tibial shaft fractures treated with IMN. It explores the benefits and limitations of early versus delayed surgery, emphasizing their influence on union rates, healing time, and complication rates. Furthermore, the review examines different IMN techniques, including reamed versus unreamed and static versus dynamic nailing, to determine their role in optimizing fracture healing. By synthesizing current evidence, this review provides critical insights into the optimal timing and technique for IMN in tibial shaft fractures, ultimately aiming to guide clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes. Future research should focus on randomized controlled trials to establish standardized surgical timing and technique selection guidelines in this patient population.
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.