ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Analysis of Safety and Efficacy: Conventional Mediolateral Pinning vs. Dorgan's Lateral Cross-Pinning in Pediatric Supracondylar Fractures.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Supracondylar fracture of the humerus (SFH) is a common occurrence in the developing skeleton, comprising a majority of all elbow injuries. Various pinning techniques have been proposed for displaced pediatric SFH, balancing the superior stability of cross pinning against its risk of ulnar nerve injury. The lateral and modified lateral cross-pinning approaches emerge as safer alternatives to prevent ulnar nerve injury. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of two pinning techniques, conventional mediolateral pinning and Dorgan's lateral cross-pinning, for treating Gartland type II, III, and IV supracondylar fractures in children. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Trial Register, and Google Scholar were searched for studies comparing the two pinning techniques. The inclusion criteria involved Gartland type II, III, and IV fractures in children, including randomized controlled or observational studies, with outcomes related to functional results and ulnar nerve impingement. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Four studies with a total of 282 participants were included. The Dorgan technique demonstrated comparable outcomes to mediolateral pinning in terms of carrying angle and range of motion. However, Dorgan's technique significantly reduced the risk of ulnar nerve impingement compared to conventional pinning (risk difference = -0.09, 95% CI = -0.13, -0.04, p = 0.0002). In the management of Gartland type II, III, and IV supracondylar fractures in children, Dorgan's lateral cross-pinning technique presents a safer alternative to conventional mediolateral pinning by significantly decreasing the risk of ulnar nerve injury. While both techniques offer comparable functional outcomes, clinicians should weigh the benefits of reduced nerve complications against potential radial nerve risks and longer treatment times associated with Dorgan's technique. Individualized decision-making considering patient factors is crucial in selecting the appropriate pinning method for optimal fracture management.
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.