ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Percutaneous Intramedullary Pin Fixation and Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nails for Pediatric Forearm Fractures.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Open reduction and pin fixation of displaced adolescent proximal humerus fractures: surgical technique and illustrative case series.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPercutaneously placed intramedullary pin fixation poses potential benefits to the patient in the treatment of pediatric forearm fractures; however, physicians still have concerns regarding clinical outcomes in comparison to traditional surgical management. The purpose of this study is to analyze the operative time, clinical outcomes, and costs associated with percutaneous intramedullary pinning (PIP) compared with elastic stable intramedullary nails (ESINs) in pediatric patients undergoing surgery for forearm fractures. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this single-center, retrospective comparative study, patients ≤18 years old with forearm fractures requiring surgical intervention with either PIP or ESINs were included. Operative times, treatment outcomes, complications, unplanned reoperations, and cost data were analyzed. A prospective phone survey was also conducted for patient satisfaction with PIP removal in the outpatient setting.
resultsA total of 140 patients were included in this study (26 PIP, 114 ESIN). PIP patients were significantly younger than ESIN patients (6.2 vs 11.9 years, p<0.001). After accounting for single- versus both-bone fixation, PIP operative time was 40 minutes shorter than that for ESIN (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in fracture healing, complications, range of motion, or unplanned reoperations. Of the 38% (n=10) of PIP patients who responded to the phone survey, 100% preferred outpatient removal. Implant charges were 10.5 times higher for ESIN patients compared to PIP ($598 vs $52). There were no charges for outpatient pin removal in the postoperative global period, whereas elective ESIN removal in the OR had a mean charge of $10,836 (±3,891).
conclusionsOur study supports the use of percutaneous pinning as a cost-efficient alternative to ESIN for diaphyseal forearm fractures in young pediatric patients with a mean age of six years. This technique avoids the need for surgical implant removal, decreases operative time, and significantly reduces costs without increasing complications or reoperations.
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.