SynthesisMedicine2025
Arthroscopic-assisted versus fluoroscopic-assisted open reduction and internal fixation for distal radius fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, there has been an increasing trend in the use of wrist arthroscopy to facilitate the treatment of distal radius fractures using open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). However, there is no consensus on its superiority despite some previous studies comparing these 2 surgical techniques. Hence, this study sought to conduct a systematic comparison of the effectiveness and safety of arthroscopic-assisted open reduction and internal fixation (AAORIF) and fluoroscopic-assisted open reduction and internal fixation (FAORIF) in the management of distal radius fractures.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in multiple databases to acquire all literature published until January 31st, 2024, comparing AAORIF versus FAORIF for the treatment of distal radius fracture, without any language or publication status restrictions. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform a meta-analysis.
resultsFive randomized controlled trials (169 patients in the AAORIF group and 171 patients in the FAORIF group) suggested that patients with distal radius fracture treated with AAORIF had better disability of arm, shoulder, and hand scores, visual analog scale score, and wrist extension than those treated with FAORIF. However, no significant differences were observed in terms of wrist flexion, pronation, supination, operative time, and complication outcomes between the 2 groups.
conclusionDespite the lack of significant differences in wrist flexion, pronation, supination, operative time, and complication outcomes between the 2 groups, the AAORIF group had more obvious advantages in terms of disability of arm, shoulder, and hand scores, visual analog scale score, and wrist extension based on the above results. We believe that treatment of distal radius fracture with AAORIF may be an optimal option compared with FAORIF. Absolutely, and additional high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to establish stronger evidence regarding this subject.
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.