SynthesisMedicine2025
Comparison of open and closed reduction and percutaneous pinning for pediatric lateral humeral condyle fractures: 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. 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.
- Efficacy and challenges of CRPP for Jakob type III lateral humeral condylar fractures: an age-stratified retrospective cohort study of 128 patients.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Open reduction versus closed reduction percutaneous pinning for the treatment of song type V lateral humeral condyle fractures in children. A short term report.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOpen reduction and percutaneous pinning (ORPP) is commonly regarded as the primary treatment option for serious displaced lateral condyle fractures of the humerus (LCFs) in children. However, some authors have suggested that closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP) may be an appropriate method for treating LCFs. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of these 2 fixation techniques.
methodsOur study conducted a search of the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for published research up to October 1, 2022. Our analysis comprehensively compared the operation failure rate, elbow function, and complication rate between CRPP and ORPP. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022379655).
resultsOur analysis included 6 non-randomized controlled trials and 532 patients. We used the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to assess the bias risk of these studies, with scores ranging from 6 to 9. The results indicate that both CRPP and ORPP yielded satisfactory elbow function outcomes (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.07-1.88, P = .22). However, CRPP had a significant rate of operative failure (17.65%, OR = 21.77, 95% CI = 3.98-119.08, P = .0004) but a lower likelihood of unsightly scars (OR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.01-0.31, P = .008). The failure rate of surgery is 0% in ORPP. There were no significant differences found in total infection (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.21-1.01, P = .05), avascular necrosis (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.09-7.79, P = .88), delayed union (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 0.06-37.35, P = .81), or surgical time (MD = 4.46, 95% CI = -25.92 to 34.84, P = .77).
conclusionsIn comparison to ORPP, CRPP may result in a higher rate of operative failure but has been found to significantly reduce the occurrence of unsightly scars. Both CRPP and ORPP showed similar levels of postoperative functional satisfaction, with no statistical difference in other complications. Our research suggests that qualified closed reduction is a viable option for doctors to treat LCF. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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.