Definitive Fixation Outcomes of Open Tibial Shaft Fractures: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To delineate if there were differences in outcomes between definitive fixation strategies in open tibial shaft fractures. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and OpenGrey. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and Quasi-randomized studies analyzing adult patients (>18 years) with open tibial shaft fractures (AO-42), undergoing definitive fixation treatment of any type. DATA EXTRACTION: Data regarding patient demographics, definitive bony/soft-tissue management, irrigation, type of antibiotics, and follow-up. Definitive intervention choices included unreamed intramedullary nailing (UN), reamed intramedullary nailing, plate fixation, multiplanar, and uniplanar external fixation (EF). The primary outcome was unplanned reoperation rate. Cochrane risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation systems were used for quality analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: A random-effects meta-analysis of head-to-head evidence, followed by a network analysis that modeled direct and indirect data was conducted to provide precise estimates [relative risk (RR) and associated 95% confidence interval (95% CI)]. RESULTS: In open tibial shaft fractures, direct comparison UN showed a lower risk of unplanned reoperation versus EF (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43-1.05, P = 0.08, moderate confidence). In Gustilo type III open fractures, the risk reduction with nailing compared with EF was larger (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37-1.01, P = 0.05, moderate confidence). UN had a lower reoperation risk compared with reamed intramedullary nailing (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58-1.4, P = 0.68, low confidence); however, this was not significant and did not demonstrate a clear advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Intramedullary nailing reduces the risk of unplanned reoperation by a third compared with EF, with a slightly larger reduction in type III open fractures. Future trials should focus on major complication rates and health-related quality of life in high-grade tibial shaft fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.020 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".