ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Study of Radiological, Functional, and Clinical Outcomes of Three-Pin Versus Five-Pin Techniques for Distal Radius Fracture Fixation.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Distal radius fractures are among the most frequently encountered injuries in orthopedic practice, and their optimal management remains a topic of considerable debate. Percutaneous pinning with Kirschner wires (K-wires) is a widely accepted treatment modality, valued for its minimal invasiveness and cost-effectiveness. However, the ideal number and configuration of pins required to balance fracture stability with potential complications is unclear. This study aims to compare the radiological, functional, and clinical outcomes of three-pin versus five-pin fixation techniques for distal radius fractures. Methodology This was a single-center, prospective comparative observational study conducted over a six-month period involving 70 patients with distal radius fractures meeting the inclusion criteria. Patients were allocated to two groups: Group A (n=35) received three-pin fixation, and Group B (n=35) received five-pin fixation. The primary objective was to compare radiological outcomes (radial height, radial inclination, volar tilt), functional outcomes using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, and the incidence of complications such as pin tract infection and loosening over a three-month follow-up period. Results At the three-month follow-up, the five-pin fixation group demonstrated statistically significant superiority in maintaining radiological parameters, with better preservation of volar tilt (mean 8.2° vs. 5.1°, p=0.04) and radial height (mean 10.5 mm vs. 8.9 mm, p=0.03). However, this radiological advantage did not translate into a statistically significant difference in functional outcomes, as measured by the mean DASH score (14.8 in the three-pin group vs. 13.5 in the five-pin group, p=0.35). Critically, the five-pin group experienced a significantly higher rate of pin tract infections (22.8% vs. 8.5%, p=0.048) and patient-reported discomfort. Conclusion The five-pin fixation technique provides enhanced biomechanical stability, resulting in superior maintenance of anatomical reduction in distal radius fractures. However, this benefit is offset by a higher risk of pin-related complications without a corresponding improvement in short-term functional outcomes. The choice between a three-pin and a five-pin construct should be tailored to the individual fracture pattern and patient factors, carefully weighing the need for stability against the risk of iatrogenic complications.
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.