Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40978004›Full record

ArticleJB & JS open access

Tibial Fractures at High Risk of Infection Treated with Intramedullary Nailing: Do Nails with Antibacterial Coatings Make a Difference?

Nikolaos K Kanakaris, Vasileios P Giannoudis, Ritchie G Strain, Peter V Giannoudis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Antibiofilm-coated intramedullary nailing for tibial and femoral diaphyseal fractures at high-risk infection: outcomes of 103 consecutive patients.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026
    Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The masquelet technique for severe open fractures: current insights.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nikolaos K KanakarisLeeds Major Trauma Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1695-1519
Vasileios P GiannoudisLeeds Major Trauma Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1083-5426
Ritchie G StrainLeeds Major Trauma Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2469-6690
Peter V GiannoudisLeeds Major Trauma Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5205-7696

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Tibial fractures represent the most common model for studying complications of long-bone fracture treatment, particularly fracture-related infections (FRIs). One of the recently emerging FRI prevention strategies has been the use of coated intramedullary nails. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of 2 commercially available coated tibial nails (the ETN PROtect and the ZNN Bactiguard) in comparison with standard noncoated nails in clinical scenarios of high FRI risk. Methods: In-hospital and follow-up data for a minimum of 12 months were collected. High risk was defined as open injuries, fasciotomies, and fractures treated initially with a bridging external fixator or Oestern-Tscherne grade 2/3 soft tissue trauma. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata, with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: Two hundred thirty-four high-risk tibial fractures were operated in different periods by the same team of senior surgeons. The PROtect nail was used in 102 fractures, the Bactiguard in 41, and the noncoated standard nail in 92. There were no statistically significant differences in epidemiological and comorbidity characteristics, severity of associated injuries, fracture types, severity of soft tissue trauma, time-to-definitive fixation, or soft tissue management between the coated nail groups. Overall, the incidence of FRIs was 9.4%: for the PROtect nails, 7.8%; for the Bactiguard nails, 4.9%; and 13.2% for the noncoated nails (p = 0.167). Staphylococcus was the most common species, whereas 11 (50%) samples were polymicrobial, and 18.8% were multidrug-resistant species. Uncomplicated union within 6 months was recorded in 64.7% vs. 65.9% vs. 53.8% and unplanned secondary interventions in 26.5% vs. 22% vs. 41.8%, respectively, (p = 0.009). Conclusions: The incidence of FRIs in these high-risk tibial fractures was 9.4%. Compared with noncoated intramedullary implants, both types of coated nails achieved a lower incidence of FRI. Larger-scale studies would provide more robust evidence to inform patient care and validate the role of coated implants in preventing FRI. Level of Evidence: Level III, cohort study (nonrandomized comparative study). See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID40978004
PMCPMC12448154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.