ArticleTrauma case reports2025
5- months exposed implant after osteosynthesis is not necessarily a problem: A case report of a distal tibia fracture.
Article in Trauma case reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Case: A 66-year-old patient sustained a closed tibial fracture which was treated by minimal invasive plate osteosynthesis. She developed a skin necrosis at the contusion side one month after surgery. A free gracilis flap was performed for soft tissue coverage together with hardware replacement. The intraoperative histopathological examen showed no signs of infection. One out of four positive intraoperative cultures taken from bone samples was positive and was interpreted as contamination. That is why the prophylactic antibiotic therapy with Cefuroxime was stopped after 5 days. The gracilis flap developed a distal necrosis with exposure of hardware. As there were no signs of active nor systematic infection no antibiotics were administrated. Directive wound healing was performed with the skin substitute Nushield® which took 5 months.After consolidation of the fracture, the plate was removed. Intraoperative cultures of bone samples during hardware removal, as well as sonication fluid culture of the plate, were negative. Conclusion: This case challenges the paradigm that exposed osteosynthesis hardware is always contaminated by cutaneous bacteria.
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.