Primary or secondary wound healing of the pin sites after removal of the external fixator: A monocenter prospective randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The aim of this monocentre randomized controlled trial was to compare primary wound closure using a single button suture to secondary wound healing of pin sites after removal of the external fixator. Methods This non-inferiority trial included all patients who were treated with an external fixator. The primary outcome was infection. Secondary outcomes included all other complications, time to wound healing (in weeks), patients most satisfactory pin site, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) measured at every 2, 6, 12, 24 and 52 weeks. The most proximal pin site was randomly allocated (1:1) to either primary closure or secondary wound healing, while the following pin sites were treated alternately. Physicians at follow-up were blinded to the closure technique. Results A total of 70 patient, providing 241 pin sites were included between 1st January 2019 and 1st March 2020. One-hundred-twenty-three pin sites were treated with primary closure and 118 with secondary wound healing. Median age was 55 (46–67), 44% was male and median duration of the external fixator was 6 days (4–8).There was no significant difference in pin site infections (2% in the primary closure group versus 0% in the secondary healing group). Wound healing was significantly faster in the primary closure group (median 2 vs. 6 weeks, p=0.013). Although not statistically significant, patients seemed more satisfied with the primary closed pin sites (55%). The Vancouver Scar scale showed no differences between groups. Conclusion Primary closure of external pin sites does not result in higher infection rate than secondary wound healing and pin sites healed significantly faster after primary closure. Primary closure, therefore, should be the preferred method.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".