SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Primary closure versus secondary healing of pin sites after the removal of provisional external fixator: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExternal fixators are commonly used for managing complex fractures, but they are associated with the risk of pin site infections. Pin site management following external fixator removal can be performed using either primary closure or secondary healing. The relative efficacy and safety of these approaches, particularly in terms of infection rates, remain uncertain.
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the infection rates of pin entry sites following the removal of the temporary external fixator, comparing primary closure and secondary healing methods.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing infection rates between primary closure and secondary healing after external fixator removal. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and other observational studies. Data were extracted on patient demographics, infection rates, and risk factors. The primary outcome was the rate of pin site infection, and data were synthesized using Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsA total of three studies (one RCT and two cohort studies) were included in the analysis, with 738 patients. Pooled analysis showed significantly lower infection rates in primary closure compared to secondary healing (OR: 0.375, 95% CI: 0.195-0.724; I² = 0.0%, P = 0.003). However, there was considerable heterogeneity among the studies, which may have contributed to the inconsistent results. Factors such as duration of external fixation, anatomical site of fixation (upper vs. lower extremity), and comorbidities may have influenced the infection rates.
conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated that primary closure of pin sites was associated with a lower risk of infection compared with secondary healing, based on studies with a maximum external fixation duration of 21 days. However, future well-designed, homogeneous research is needed to better understand the impact of these two wound management approaches on pin site infections.
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.