ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Study Between Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis and Distal Tip Locking Tibial Nailing in the Treatment of Lower Third Tibial Shaft Fractures.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistal third tibial shaft fractures are challenging due to limited soft tissue coverage and poor vascularity. We compared minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with distal tip-locking intramedullary nailing.
methodsA prospective two-center cohort of 40 adults with extra-articular distal third tibial fractures was allocated to MIPO (n = 20) or intramedullary nailing (IMN) (n = 20). Primary outcomes were time to union and six-month functional results (AOFAS). Secondary outcomes included infections, malalignment, and secondary procedures.
resultsMean age was similar (MIPO 35.22 ± 5.53 years; IMN 35.52 ± 5.90). Sex distribution was as follows: MIPO 15 (75%) men and five (25%) women; IMN 14 (70%) men and six (30%) women. Union was faster with IMN (14 ± 2.5 weeks) than with MIPO (17 ± 4 weeks). AOFAS at six months showed that in the MIPO group, 12 (60%) were excellent, six (30%) were good, and two (10%) were fair. In the IMN group, 14 (70%) were excellent, four (20%) were good, and two (10%) were fair. Superficial infection occurred in four (20%) in the MIPO group versus three (15%) in the IMN group; no infection occurred in 16 (80%) in the MIPO group versus 17 (85%) in the IMN group. Malalignment occurred in one (5%) in the MIPO group versus three (15%) in the IMN group. Secondary procedures in the MIPO group included one (5%) revision and three (15%) debridements, with 16 (80%) requiring none. In the IMN group, two (10%) required dynamization, and 18 (90%) required no additional procedure.
conclusionsFor extra-articular distal third tibial fractures, IMN achieved faster union and a higher proportion of excellent AOFAS outcomes, with similar low rates of complications, whereas MIPO showed a lower malalignment rate. Both techniques are viable, with IMN favored when earlier union is prioritized.
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.