ArticleSICOT-J2026
Lateral parapatellar approach versus transpatellar splitting approach in intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal tibia fractures, a prospective randomized controlled study.
Article in SICOT-J, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnterior knee pain (AKP) is a frequent complaint after tibial intramedullary nailing (IMN), and the choice of entry approach may contribute to its occurrence. This trial compared the lateral parapatellar semi-extended (LPP) approach versus the midline transpatellar splitting (MLTP) approach for IMN of closed diaphyseal tibial fractures, focusing on AKP and knee function.
methodsIn this single-blinded randomized controlled trial, 50 adults with acute closed AO/OTA 42 tibial shaft fractures were allocated 1:1 to IMN performed through either the LPP or MLTP approach. Follow-up assessments were performed at 3 and 6 months after surgery. Primary outcomes were AKP during weight-bearing, quantified using a visual analog scale (VAS), and knee function measured by the Lysholm Knee Score.
resultsLPP achieved higher Lysholm scores at 3 months (82.36 ± 5.2 vs. 75.76 ± 6.1; P < 0.001) and 6 months (87.32 ± 4.8 vs. 84.20 ± 5.4; P = 0.024), indicating superior early functional recovery. VAS AKP was lower with LPP at 3 months (2.40 ± 0.9 vs. 3.60 ± 1.2; P = 0.001), but similar by 6 months (1.80 ± 0.7 vs. 1.96 ± 0.8; P = 0.122), suggesting the benefit is mainly early. Operative time favored LPP (62.1 ± 8.7 vs. 68.4 ± 10.2 min; P = 0.02) with fewer fluoroscopy shots (29.2 ± 5.4 vs. 38.5 ± 6.1; P < 0.001). All fractures united; time to union was comparable (16.8 ± 2.4 vs. 16.2 ± 2.1 weeks; P = 0.41). Complications were minor in both groups.
conclusionsLPP semi-extended tibial IMN was associated with lower early AKP, better early knee function, and improved operative efficiency without compromising union during 6-month follow-up. A Longer follow-up is required to determine whether anterior knee pain and functional outcomes converge over time.
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.