MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400450760 · doi:10.1016/j.recot.2024.07.009

[Artículo traducido] Abordaje anterior para fracturas supracondíleas de húmero pediátrica: revisión sistemática

2024· review· es· W4400450760 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Gonzalez‐Morgado, Ferran Blasco-Casado, Ernesto Guerra-Farfán, Jose Manuel de María Prieto, Unai Jambrina-Abasolo, Yuri Lara-Taranchenko, Seper Ekhtiari, Francisco Soldado

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología · 2024
Typereview
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La reducción abierta rara vez es necesaria en las fracturas supracondíleas de húmero pediátrica. Sin embargo, falta evidencia sobre cuál es el abordaje óptimo para obtener resultados satisfactorios. El abordaje anterior facilita una visión directa de la fractura y una excelente exposición de las estructuras neurovasculares, aunque su uso es poco común. El objetivo de este estudio fue revisar las indicaciones, los resultados y las complicaciones asociadas con el abordaje anterior para la reducción abierta de estas fracturas. Nuestro protocolo se registró en PROSPERO: CRD42023446923. La búsqueda se realizó en MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov y Cochrane Library, desde inicio hasta diciembre de 2023. Se realizó screening por duplicado. Se recogieron datos demográficos, indicaciones para el abordaje abierto, puntuación de Flynn funcional y estética y complicaciones. La calidad de los estudios se evaluó con Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies Criteria (MINORS). Se incluyeron 19 estudios que agrupaban a 483 pacientes. Un estudio se clasificó con nivel de evidencia 2, 10 con nivel 3 y 8 con nivel 4. La puntuación media MINORS fue de 13,05 ± 3,47. La indicación principal para el abordaje abierto fue el fracaso de la reducción cerrada, reportada en el 46% de los pacientes. El 97,7 y el 98,6% de los pacientes lograron un Flynn funcional y cosmético satisfactorio, respectivamente. La tasa de lesiones neurovasculares posquirúrgicas fue del 1,4%. Un paciente fue reintervenido. El abordaje anterior es seguro y efectivo en el manejo de fracturas supracondíleas de húmero pediátricas, cuando se requiera un abordaje abierto. Revisión sistemática de estudios con nivel de evidencia 2-4. Open reduction is rarely performed in pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures. However, clear evidence is lacking regarding the optimal open approach to achieve satisfactory results. The anterior approach provides direct visualization of the fracture and excellent exposure to neurovascular structures, although its utilization is less common. The objective of this study was to review the indications, outcomes, and complications associated with the anterior approach for open reduction of these fractures. Our protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42023446923. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to search date (December 2023) and screened in duplicate for relevant studies. Data were collected regarding patient demographics, indications for open reduction, Flynn's functional and cosmetic outcomes, and complications. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies Criteria. A total of 19 studies involving 483 patients were included. One study was classified as Level 2 evidence, ten as Level 3, and eight as Level 4. The mean MINORS score was 13.05 ± 3.47. The primary indication for open reduction was failed closed reduction, observed in 46% of patients. 97.7% and 98.6% of patients achieved Flynn's functional and cosmetic satisfactory results, respectively. The postsurgical neurovascular injury rate was 1.4%. One patient required reintervention. The anterior approach is safe and effective for managing pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures requiring open reduction. Systematic review of Level 2-4 evidence studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y TraumatologíaSame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207