Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40071972›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2025

Pre-operative management of fracture blisters: a systematic review.

Ishtar Redman, Kapil Sugand, Aashtad Daruwalla, Andrew Clark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kapil Sugand
Aashtad Daruwalla
Andrew Clark

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The pre-operative management of fracture blisters is an area of uncertainty within trauma and orthopaedic surgeries. Management strategies vary significantly between and within orthopaedic departments across the United Kingdom. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively appraise and synthesize the existing literature pertaining to this topic, highlighting current practices and areas for ongoing research. Methods: Extensive electronic literature searches were performed on PubMed/MEDLINE (January 1946-May 2024), Embase (January 1974-May 2024) and Cochrane library (January 1933-May 2024) databases. The search terms were as follows: (fracture blister OR bone blister*) AND (dress* OR drain* OR aspirat* OR deroof* OR manage*). These keywords were searched in the subject headings, in title and in abstract. Results: The results of the search methodology revealed five articles, which represented the best evidence to the clinical question. These papers reported on rates of wound healing and post-operative infection, time to surgical readiness and treatment costs, following varying treatment modalities in 1162 patients. The authors, publication dates, countries, patient groups, study outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated in Supplementary Table 1. Conclusion: Fracture blisters pose a significant challenge in clinical practice, leading to delays in surgery, suboptimal surgical approaches and complications in wound healing post-operatively. Currently, there is no consensus describing the optimal management of these blisters. This review challenges the conventional belief that fracture blisters are sterile, highlighting that the application of topical agents to the deroofed blister bed may expedite surgical readiness.

Indexed as

aspirationbone blistersderooffracture blistershaemorrhagic blisterspre-operative managementserous blisterssilver sulfadiazene

Identifiers

PMID40071972
PMCPMC11896682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.