ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Fixation for metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction noncomminuted fracture of the distal humerus in children: K-wire or ESIN, how to decide?
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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.
- Clinical study of modular external fixator for distal humeral metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction fractures in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Medial to lateral diagonal injury of the elbow without elbow dislocation in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
Background: The metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction (MDJ) fracture of the distal humerus has posed significant difficulty clinically, as the increased height of the distal fragmant makes it hard for Kirschner wires to reach the proximal fragment. Our previous study provided suggestions for the choice of fixation in metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction (MDJ) fracture of the distal humerus according to the location of the fracture line based on biomechanical analysis. This study went on to testify an advanced suggestions in clinical patients. Methods: Normal elbow x-rays were measured to get a normal reference value to define the location of the fracture. A ratio of c' (the diameter of humeral shaft at the most proximal point of the fracture line)/d (the diameter of humeral shaft at distal humerus) was used to define the location of the fracture and guide the selection of fixation. According to our previous research, the ratio of c'/d was used to define the location of the fracture. Eighty-nine patients with MDJ fractures were included. For patients with high MDJ fracture elastic stable intramedullary nails (ESIN) were selected and for those with low MDJ fractures Kirschner wires were used. The short-term outcome was assessed using the Flynn criteria. Results: The c/d ratio of 1.2 was finally used to define the high or low location of the fracture. All the 89 MDJ fractures healed uneventfully. 73 of them were fixed with lateral or crossed pinning and 84.9% of them were ranked as excellent. 16 cases were fixed with ESIN and 81.3% were excellent. There were no significant difference between the outcomes of the groups. Conclusions: ESINs were used for fractures in the higher part of the MDJ region, defined as c'/d < 1.2. Three lateral divergent or crossed pins were used for fractures in the lower part of the MDJ region with c'/d ≥ 1.2. This strategy, as recommended by our previous biomechanical research, has been demonstrated to be practical in clinical practice. Level of evidence: Level III retrospective cohort study.
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.