SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Comparative analysis of dynamic external fixation, static external fixation, and internal fixation in interphalangeal joint fractures: outcomes, complications, and clinical implications.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes and Complications of the Suzuki Frame in Digital Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2026Review
- Critical appraisal of methodological limitations in the systematic review on interphalangeal joint fracture fixation.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveProximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) fractures present significant therapeutic challenges in hand surgery. This systematic review evaluated the comparative efficacy of dynamic external fixation against traditional treatment modalities, integrating machine learning analysis to enhance outcome prediction and treatment selection.
methodsWe systematically reviewed 43 clinical studies published between January 2014 and January 2024, including 26 dynamic external fixations, 6 traditional internal fixations, and 11 static external fixations. Studies were included if they reported quantitative outcomes of PIPJ fracture treatment, had a minimum follow-up of 4 weeks, and included at least 20 patients. Case series with fewer than 5 patients and non-English publications without available translations were excluded. The analysis focused on four key outcomes: range of motion (ROM), recovery time, complication rates, and functional results. We developed a neural network model to predict treatment outcomes, achieving 89.7% accuracy (95% CI 87.3-92.1%). Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
resultsDynamic external fixation demonstrated superior outcomes across multiple domains. ROM analysis revealed a median of 86.12° (range: 70°-95°) for dynamic fixation compared to 72.30° (range: 56°-88°) for traditional approaches (mean difference: 13.82°, 95% CI 10.24-17.40°). Dynamic fixation significantly reduced recovery duration (9.68 weeks vs. 20.47 weeks, p < 0.001). Complication profiles favored dynamic fixation, with pin tract infection rates of 2.4% versus 3.8% for traditional fixation. Functional assessment using the Ishida scoring system showed favorable outcomes in the dynamic fixation group, with a mean score of 85.3 points and 78% of cases achieving scores above 80 points. DISCUSSION: This comprehensive systematic review provides evidence supporting the efficacy of dynamic external fixation for PIPJ fracture treatment. The findings demonstrate improved functional outcomes, accelerated rehabilitation, and reduced complication rates. The integration of machine learning analysis shows promise for optimizing patient-specific treatment selection. Further validation through large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up periods is warranted.
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.