ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Comparison of software-assisted and freehand methods of rotational assessment for diaphyseal tibia fractures.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAccurate rotational reduction following tibial shaft fracture fixation is absent in up to 36% of cases yet may be critical for lower extremity biomechanics. The objective of this cadaveric study was to compare the results of freehand methods of reduction with software-assisted reduction.
methodsFour fellowship-trained orthopaedic trauma surgeons attempted rotational correction in a cadaveric model with fluoroscopic assistance (without radiographic visualization of the fracture site) using (1) their method of choice (MoC) and (2) software assistance (SA). After correction, deviation from baseline rotation was calculated.
resultsThe mean difference between the two methods (MoC-SA) was - 0.2° which was not statistically significant. There was no difference in variability between methods. The rate of clinically relevant rotational deformity (> 15°) was 28% using MoC and 31% using SA.
conclusionRotational assessment of diaphyseal tibia fractures in this cadaveric model was not significantly different when compared between method of choice and software augmentation.
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.