Author
Listed:
- Nucki Nursjamsi Hidajat
- R M Satrio Nugroho Magetsari
- Gregorius Thomas Prasetiyo
- Danendra Rakha Putra Respati
- Kevin Christian Tjandra
Abstract
Background: The recommendation on whether to bury or expose the Kirschner wire (K-wire) for the management of fractures has still been controversial with inconsistent results in the published studies due to the potential issue associated with exposed K-wire is the heightened risk of infection, as it comes into direct contact with the external environment and air. This study aims to summarize the specific outcomes between buried and exposed K-wire for the management of hand and forearm fractures. Methods: We conducted relevant literature searches on Europe PMC, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases using specific keywords. This investigation focuses on individuals of any age diagnosed with hand or forearm fractures who underwent surgery involving Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation. It examines the comparison between buried and exposed K-wire fixation, emphasizing primary outcome pin infection, along with secondary outcomes such as early pin removal, days to pin removal, and surgical duration. The study includes observational studies (cohort/case-control) or randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The results of continuous variables were pooled into the standardized mean difference (SMD), while dichotomous variables were pooled into odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence intervals using random-effect models. The quality of included studies was assessed with Cochrane Collaborations, Risk of Bias version 2 (RoB v2). Results: A total of 11 studies were included. Our pooled analysis revealed that buried K-wire was associated with a lower risk of pin site infection [RR 0.49 (95% CI 0.36–0.67), p
Suggested Citation
Nucki Nursjamsi Hidajat & R M Satrio Nugroho Magetsari & Gregorius Thomas Prasetiyo & Danendra Rakha Putra Respati & Kevin Christian Tjandra, 2024.
"Buried or exposed Kirschner wire for the management of hand and forearm fractures: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-18, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0296149
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296149
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0296149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.