The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
-
J Bone Joint Surg Am · Mar 2008
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative StudyNonoperative treatment compared with plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. Surgical technique.
Recent studies have shown a high prevalence of symptomatic malunion and nonunion after nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. We sought to compare patient-oriented outcome and complication rates following nonoperative treatment and those after plate fixation of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. ⋯ Operative fixation of a displaced fracture of the clavicular shaft results in improved functional outcome and a lower rate of malunion and nonunion compared with nonoperative treatment at one year of follow-up. Hardware removal remains the most common reason for repeat intervention in the operative group. This study supports primary plate fixation of completely displaced midshaft clavicular fractures in active adult patients.
-
J Bone Joint Surg Am · Mar 2008
Comparative StudyLateral entry compared with medial and lateral entry pin fixation for completely displaced supracondylar humeral fractures in children. Surgical technique.
Closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation is the treatment of choice for completely displaced (type-III) extension supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children, although controversy persists regarding the optimal pin-fixation technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of lateral entry pin fixation with that of medial and lateral entry pin fixation for the operative treatment of completely displaced extension supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. ⋯ With use of the specific techniques employed in this study, both lateral entry pin fixation and medial and lateral entry pin fixation are effective in the treatment of completely displaced (type-III) extension supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children.
-
J Bone Joint Surg Am · Mar 2008
Publication bias in orthopaedic research: an analysis of scientific factors associated with publication in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume).
Positive outcomes are common in the orthopaedic literature, and there are many who believe it may be due to the preferential publication of studies with positive findings-a phenomenon known as publication bias. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether positive findings rendered a manuscript submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) more likely to be accepted for publication. ⋯ We found no evidence of publication bias in the review of manuscripts for publication by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, as positive and nonpositive studies were accepted at similar rates. The dearth of nonpositive studies in the orthopaedic literature is of concern, and may be due largely to investigator-based factors. Orthopaedic researchers should submit negative and neutral studies for publication, confident that the likelihood of acceptance will not be influenced by the direction of study findings.