Interlocking intramedullary nail for forearm diaphyseal fractures in adults—A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the outcomes, complications, and potential advantages of using anatomical interlocking intramedullary nails (IMN) in the treatment of radius and ulnar shaft diaphyseal fractures in adults. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were searched between January 2000 and January 2023. Studies meeting criteria were observational or randomized controlled trials evaluating outcomes in IMN for adult diaphyseal forearm fractures. Standardized data extraction was performed and a quality assessment tool was used to evaluate individual study methodology. Descriptive statistics for interventions, functional outcomes, and complications were reported. Meta-analysis was performed for patient-reported outcome measures and operative time. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies involving 1268 patients were included with 764 (60%) undergoing IMN, 21% open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and 9% hybrid fixation. There was no significant difference between groups in DASH and Grace-Eversmann scores. Operative time was significantly shorter in IMN compared with ORIF. The DASH scores were: 13.1 ± 6.04 for IMN, 10.17 ± 3.98 for ORIF, and 15.5 ± 0.63 in hybrids. Mean operative time was 65.3 ± 28.7 in ORIF and 50.8 ± 17.7 in IMN. Complication rates were 16.7% in the IMN group, 14.9% in ORIF, and 6.3% in hybrid constructs. There were 11 cases of extensor pollicis rupture in the IMN group. Average IMN pronation and supination were 78.3° ± 7.9° and 73° ± 5.0°, respectively. Average ORIF pronation and supination was 82.15° ± 1.9° and 79.7° ± 4.5°, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar functional outcomes and complication rates along with shorter operative times can be achieved with IMN compared with ORIF. The use of IMN is promising, however, higher quality evidence is required to assess appropriate indications, subtle differences in range of motion, implant-related complications, and cost-effectiveness. Trail Registration PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) (ID: CRD42022362353).
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".