ArticleJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2025
Ultra-distal tibial fractures: a retrospective comparison of distal plate versus nail fixation.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 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
backgroundCurrent literature on ultra-distal tibial fractures (UDTF) is relatively limited, particularly regarding the outcomes and complications of different treatment strategies, with data being notably scarce. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of intramedullary nailing (IMN) and distal tibial plate (DTP) fixation in the treatment of UDTF.
methodsA total of 48 eligible patients were retrospectively reviewed and divided into two matched groups based on age, gender, injury severity score, and fracture type. The IMN group comprised 21 patients, and the DTP group included 27 patients. All patients were followed up to assess both clinical and radiological outcomes.
resultsThe IMN group demonstrated significantly shorter surgery time (P = 0.043) and fracture healing time (P = 0.002) compared with the DTP group. However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of time from fracture to admission (P = 0.740), preoperative hospital stay (P = 0.310), postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.379), infection rates (P = 1.000), or rates of nonunion (P = 0.822). Postoperative malalignment occurred in three patients in the IMN group and one patient in the DTP group (P = 0.430). The mean postoperative angulation in both groups was similar in the coronal plane (P = 0.101) and sagittal plane (P = 0.334). The mean Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) was 88.62 ± 5.24 in the IMN group and 85.85 ± 8.39 in the DTP group (P = 0.169).
conclusionBoth implants are effective in treating UDTF. However, IMN offers advantages in reducing surgical time, accelerating fracture healing, and promoting early recovery. Therefore, IMN may represent a superior surgical option for managing UDTF.
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.