You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
RETRACTED ARTICLE: A meta-analysis of external fixator versus intramedullary nails for open tibial fracture fixation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13018-014-0075-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xian Xu, Xu Li, Lin Liu, Wei Wu |
| Abstract |
BackgroundTo compare the clinical outcomes of external fixator (EF) and intramedullary nails (IN) in the treatment of open tibial fractures.MethodsWe searched seven electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, Cochrane library, CNKI, and CBM) for trials of tibial fracture fixation published from 1980 to 2013. The indicators including postoperative infection, malunion, nonunion, soft tissue injury, delayed healing, and healing time were used for quantitative outcome assessments.ResultsA total of nine trials involving 532 patients (EF, n¿=¿253; IN, n¿=¿279) with open tibia fractures were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the patients undergoing IN had lower incidence of postoperative infection (risk radio [RR]¿=¿3.85; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 2.67¿5.54; P¿<¿0.0001), malunion (RR¿=¿2.31; 95% CI, 1.40¿3.81; P¿=¿0.001), nonunion (RR¿=¿1.41; 95% CI, 1.06¿1.88; P¿=¿0.02) and less healing time (weighted mean difference [WMD]¿=¿6.19; 95% CI, 1.42¿10.96; P¿=¿0.01) compared with EF. However, regarding to the soft tissue injury (RR¿=¿0.74; 95% CI, 0.34¿1.62; P¿=¿0.45) and delayed healing (RR¿=¿1.38; 95% CI, 0.79¿2.43; P¿=¿0.26), there is no significantly difference between EF and IN approach.ConclusionIn conclusion, the use of IN is more effective than EF and may be considered as first-line approach in fixation of open tibial fractures. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 13 | 30% |
| Unknown | 2 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 64% |
| Engineering | 5 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |