ArticleCureus2024
Management of Isolated Radial Diaphyseal Fractures in the Paediatric Population.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Paediatric forearm fractures are common, but isolated radial diaphyseal fractures are rare, representing a small subset. Unlike fractures involving both the radius and ulna, these fractures lack well-established management guidelines. The potential for alignment loss during treatment underscores the need for specific protocols. This study highlights the importance of a tailored approach based on fracture classification. Stable fractures can be managed conservatively, but prompt surgical intervention is critical for unstable cases to prevent malalignment. Methods This retrospective study evaluated 597 paediatric forearm fractures surgically treated between 2011 and 2017. Of these, 49 cases of isolated radial diaphyseal fractures met the inclusion criteria. Patients with distal or proximal epiphyseal/metaphyseal fractures and those older than 18 years were excluded. To guide management, the study developed a simple classification system based on fracture pattern, angulation, and displacement. Results The fractures were classified into three groups based on a simple classification system developed for this study: stable fractures, moderately displaced fractures, and severely displaced or unstable fractures. Stable fractures, characterized by minimal angulation (<10°) and no significant displacement (<2 mm), were managed conservatively with immobilization. All 18 patients in this group achieved union without complications. Moderately displaced fractures, defined as angulation between 10° and 20° or displacement of 2-5 mm, typically required closed reduction, while five cases in this group underwent surgical fixation using elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN). Outcomes for these patients were satisfactory, although some experienced mild complications such as transient stiffness. Severely displaced or unstable fractures, with angulation exceeding 20° or displacement greater than 5 mm, necessitated surgical intervention in all 15 cases. ESIN was the preferred method for stabilization, achieving good alignment and functional recovery, although one patient experienced transient nerve irritation. These results highlight the importance of a tailored approach to management based on the severity of fracture displacement and angulation. Conclusion The proposed classification and treatment protocol standardize management and improve outcomes for paediatric isolated radial diaphyseal fractures. Further research is required to validate these findings and refine treatment strategies for this rare injury.
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.