ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2025
Timing of Type I Open Distal Radius Fracture Fixation Does Not Affect Early Complication Rates.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Urgent Versus Delayed Surgical Treatment of Open Distal Radius Fractures: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: There is limited published evidence regarding the optimal management of type I open fractures of the distal radius. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term complication rates among open fractures of the distal radius, with attention to the timing of management of type I fractures. Our hypothesis was that there would not be a temporal association between treatment and infection for type I open distal radius fractures (DRFs). Methods: A retrospective review of all open DRFs at a single level-1 trauma center over a 10-year period was performed. Patients were grouped based on Gustilo Anderson open fracture classification. The primary outcome measures were superficial and deep infection rates in all patients with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. A subgroup analysis was performed for Gustilo Anderson type I injuries with a 3-month follow-up based on time to surgery. Results: Seventy-one patients with open DRFs were included for analysis with an average follow-up of 16.7 months. There was a higher rate of deep infection (30%) and average number of revision surgeries (3.0) in the type III cohort compared with both type II (4% and 0.6) and type I (0% and 0.39) cohorts. A subgroup analysis of 63 type I fractures with a minimum of 3-month follow-up revealed zero infections, with no difference in other complications or number of revision surgeries among patients definitively managed within 24 hours, 24-72 hours, and greater than 72 hours. Two patients were managed nonoperatively, without complication. Conclusions: Type I open DRFs differ from higher grade DRFs with regard to demographics and injury characteristics, along with infection, complication, and reoperation rates. With no infections in the type I DRF cohort and no difference in complication rates based on time to debridement, our data suggest that it is safe to manage type I open DRFs similarly to closed injuries regarding surgical timing. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic III.
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.