ReviewEFORT open reviews2025
Does rigid intramedullary nailing through open growth plates cause harm? A scoping review.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 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
Purpose: This scoping review aimed to map the literature on the effects of growth plate violation with intramedullary locking nail (IMN) at the knee in skeletally immature patients. It focused on assessing clinical and experimental outcomes, with particular attention to complications such as growth arrest and deformities. Methods: This scoping review followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews, with registered protocol at the Open Science Framework. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed for studies involving pediatric patients with open growth plates treated with IMNs at the knee and animal studies assessing physeal violations. Results: Ten studies were included, comprising six clinical, three animal studies, and one review. The clinical studies included 89 pediatric patients treated either with retrograde femoral or antegrade tibial nailing. The youngest patient was a 7-years-old female, and there were no reported cases of growth arrest following IMN. Animal studies demonstrated that up to 7% of physeal violation did not result in significant growth disturbances, but exceeding this threshold led to growth inhibition. In addition, implant removal showed mixed results, with early bone bridge formation noted in few cases. Conclusions: Limited physeal violations by IMN may not cause significant growth disturbances, while exceeding certain thresholds could result in adverse outcomes. The current evidence is insufficient to make recommendations on the use of IMN at the knee in skeletally immature patients, particularly to make recommendations regarding age, femur/tibia and sex. Further research is needed to establish long-term outcomes and optimal guidelines for safe physeal instrumentation. Level of evidence: 4.
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.