ArticleCureus2025
Suprapatellar Versus Infrapatellar Approach for Intramedullary Nailing of Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcomes.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background With the increasing adoption of the suprapatellar approach for intramedullary tibial nailing in diaphyseal tibial fractures, this study compared intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between infrapatellar nailing (IPN) and suprapatellar nailing (SPN). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 51 SPN and 58 IPN procedures performed at a single trauma center between October 2018 and June 2023. Operative time, postoperative blood loss, functional outcomes using the Lysholm score, and the incidence of anterior knee pain (AKP) at follow-up were compared. Results There were no significant differences in age or sex between the groups. Mean follow-up was 36.74 ± 18.11 months for SPN and 35.98 ± 15.11 months for IPN. Mean operative time was significantly shorter in the SPN group (79.7 ± 34.0 min) compared to the IPN group (91.9 ± 36.0 min, p < 0.05). The SPN group showed significantly higher Lysholm scores (89.45 ± 9.2 vs. 85.1 ± 10.5, p = 0.017) and a lower incidence of AKP. No significant difference was observed in postoperative blood loss. Conclusion Compared to the IPN approach, SPN for diaphyseal tibial fractures may reduce operative time, decrease the incidence of AKP, and improve postoperative functional outcomes.
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.