Iatrogenic Ulnar Nerve Injury After the Surgical Treatment of Displaced Supracondylar Fractures of the Humerus: Number Needed to Harm, A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supracondylar fractures of the humerus are common pediatric elbow injuries. Most displaced or angulated fractures are treated by closed reduction and percutaneous pinning, with either a crossed pin or lateral pin configuration. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine if there is an increased risk of iatrogenic nerve injury associated with the crossed pin configuration. METHODS: Relevant articles were identified by searching electronic databases and hand searching-related journal and conference proceedings. Within each trial, the risk of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury was calculated for each pinning technique. For studies comparing crossed versus lateral pinning, the resulting trial-based differences in risk estimates were pooled using a random effects meta-analysis. A number needed to harm was determined using the pooled risk difference. RESULTS: Thirty-two trials consisting of 2639 patients were used in the pooled analysis. The pooled risk difference of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury is 0.035 (95% confidence interval, 0.014-0.056), with a higher incidence of injury in the crossed pinning group. The weighed number needed to harm for the crossed pinning is 28 (95% confidence interval, 17-71). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest that there is an iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury for every 28 patients treated with the crossed pinning compared with the lateral pinning. Further research is necessary to ensure that the optimal pinning technique is chosen to treat these factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".