ReviewJB & JS open access
Tension Band Fixation for Patellar Fractures Using K-Wires Versus Cannulated Screws: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in JB & JS open access. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Tension band fixation (TBF) using screws or wires is the widely accepted standard of care for patellar fractures. This meta-analysis aims to quantitatively compare postoperative outcomes between Kirschner wire tension band fixation (KWTB) and cannulated screw tension band fixation (CSTB) to determine the optimal fixation method. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for comparative studies on KWTB vs. CSTB. Primary outcomes included union rate, time to union, infection, reoperation rate and pain. Secondary outcomes included range of motion, time to weight bearing, implant complications, and functional scores. Results: This meta-analysis included 10 studies with 1,272 patients. KWTB was associated with a significantly longer time to union (p = 0.02), greater pain scores (p < 0.0001), and higher infection rates (p = 0.04). However, union and reoperation rates were comparable. For secondary outcomes, CSTB had significantly improved time to full weight bearing (p < 0.00001). In addition, KWTB had higher complication rates, including implant migration/loosening (p < 0.00001), implant prominence, skin irritation (p = 0.003), and implant removal (p < 0.00001). The Lysholm score (p < 0.00001) and range of motion (p = 0.03) were significantly higher in the CSTB group. Conclusion: While union rates are comparable, CSTB for TBF in patellar fractures is associated with improved functional outcomes and a reduced complication rate compared with KWTB. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review and meta-analysis. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.