Primary Closure or Secondary Wound Healing of Pin Sites After External Fixator Removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this single-center randomized controlled trial was to compare primary wound closure using a suture with secondary wound healing of pin sites after removal of temporary external fixation. METHODS: This noninferiority trial included all patients who were treated with a temporary external fixator on an upper or lower extremity at 1 institution. The primary outcome was pin-site infection. Secondary outcomes were measured at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks and included all other complications, time to pin-site wound healing (in weeks), the most satisfactory pin site as rated by the patient, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The most proximal pin site was randomly allocated (1:1) to either primary closure or secondary wound healing, and the other pin sites were treated alternately. RESULTS: Seventy patients, providing 241 pin sites, were included between January 1, 2019, and March 1, 2020. A total of 123 pin sites were treated with primary closure and 118, with secondary wound healing. The median age was 55 years (interquartile range, 46 to 67 years), 44% were male, and the median duration of the external fixation was 6 days (interquartile range, 4 to 8 days). There were no pin-site infections in either group. Wound healing was significantly faster in the primary closure group (median of 2 versus 6 weeks, p = 0.013). The VSS and patient satisfaction showed no differences between groups. There was 1 case of fracture-related infection not related to any pin site. CONCLUSIONS: Primary closure of temporary external fixator pin sites did not result in higher infection rates compared with secondary wound healing, and pin sites healed significantly faster after primary closure. Primary closure should therefore be considered in patients treated with a temporary external fixator. 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".