ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2025
Locking pegs versus locking screws in volar plating of distal radius fractures.
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the radiological outcome of patients with distal radius fractures stabilized with a volar plate using either locking screws or pegs. MATERIAL &
methodsFor this retrospective study all adult patients that received volar plating of a distal radius fracture at a trauma center between 06/2019 and 06/2022 were eligible for inclusion. Only patients who received an implant allowing both locking pegs and screws were included. Primary outcome was radiological loss of reduction at the 6-week and at the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery, implant removal, fracture union and complications.
resultsFourty-nine patients treated with pegs and 39 with screws were included. Patient demographics were comparable, however there were more complex fractures in the peg group. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of radiological loss of reduction between the groups at 6 weeks or 12 months (p = 1). Patients treated with pegs were more frequently operated upon by experienced surgeons while screws were more often used by more junior staff. The duration of surgery was longer for patients who received screws (p = 0.003). Union was achieved in all fractures for which a 12-month x-ray was available. There was no significant difference in implant removal rate or other complications.
conclusionsRegarding secondary loss of reduction both locking pegs and screws show similar results. Considering the potential benefits of pegs, such as the smooth surface which may reduce the risk of joint penetration, pegs are a viable alternative to screws.
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.