ReviewCureus2025
Suture Fixation Versus Screw Fixation in Pediatric Tibial Eminence Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Reoperation Rates.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Arthroscopic ACL Tibial Spine Avulsion Fixation Using Suture Pull-Through Double-Tunnel Technique.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Suture fixation (SF) has gained prominence as a physeal-sparing alternative to screw fixation (SCF) in the operative management of pediatric tibial eminence fractures, aiming to reduce hardware-related complications while maintaining joint stability. This meta-analysis evaluated clinical and functional outcomes comparing SF with SCF in skeletally immature patients. A systematic review of comparative studies was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Outcomes assessed included clinically relevant postoperative measures used to evaluate overall treatment success. Fixed-effect models were used to generate pooled effect estimates. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic, and publication bias was examined with funnel plots and Egger's test. Four studies encompassing 224 pediatric patients were included. SF resulted in a significantly lower reoperation frequency (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.12-0.42, p < 0.00001, I² = 42%) and markedly reduced hardware removal (OR = 0.08, p < 0.00001, I² = 0%). Return to sport rates were superior in the SF group (OR = 2.71, p = 0.02, I² = 0%). No significant differences were observed between SF and SCF for postoperative instability (OR = 0.72, p = 0.50, I² = 0%), arthrofibrosis requiring surgery (OR = 0.80, p = 0.60, I² = 0%), or full range of motion recovery (OR = 1.36, p = 0.34, I² = 0%). Publication bias was not detected. Compared with SCF, SF provides substantially lower rates of reoperation and hardware removal while maintaining equivalent stability, stiffness outcomes, and functional recovery. SF should be strongly considered the preferred technique in appropriately selected pediatric patients.
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.