ArticleOrthopedic reviews2026
Polymer-Based Resorbable vs Non-resorbable Implants for Pediatric Upper Extremity Fractures: A Systematic Review.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pediatric upper extremity fractures are common and frequently require surgical intervention. Traditional fixation methods using metallic implants, such as Kirschner wires and elastic stable intramedullary nails, offer reliable mechanical stability but necessitate secondary procedures for hardware removal. Polymer-based resorbable implants offer an advantage by eliminating the need for secondary procedures for hardware removal while maintaining efficacy. This systematic review evaluates the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of resorbable compared to non-resorbable implants in pediatric patients. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria targeted studies comparing outcomes of resorbable versus non-resorbable implants in pediatric upper extremity fractures. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tools. Nine studies met inclusion criteria, comprising one randomized controlled trial and eight retrospective cohort studies. Results: Nine studies including 391 pediatric patients were analyzed. The most common fractures involved the forearm (four studies), followed by lateral condyle (three studies) and medial epicondyle injuries (two studies). Mean patient age ranged from 5.6 to 11.6 years. Surgical site infections, skin irritation, postoperative pain, and nonunion were less common with resorbable implants with only one case requiring implant removal. Re-displacement was more frequent with resorbable implants but rarely required revision. Functional outcomes were comparable across groups. Conclusions: Resorbable implants are a safe and efficacious alternative to traditional metallic devices for pediatric upper extremity fractures. Their favorable complication profile and elimination of hardware removal procedures support wider clinical adoption. Further randomized trials are warranted.
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.