Cochrane · systematic review · CD013609
Interventions for treating supracondylar elbow fractures in children
Marson, BA, Ikram, A, Craxford, S, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
Bone, Joint and Muscle TraumaAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
10
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
4
Included studies
NR
No studies 4 · 40%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 40%Low 2 · 20%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Open reduction compared with closed reduction position for treatment of displaced supracondylar fractures in children
Population: children with displaced supracondylar elbow fractures
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Functional outcome Open reduction vs closed reduction position | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Treatment failure requiring re‐intervention Open reduction vs closed reduction position | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Nerve injury Open reduction vs closed reduction position | RR 0.3 [0.09, 1.01] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Major complications Open reduction vs closed reduction position | RR 4.15 [1.07, 16.2] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cosmetic deformity Measured as the presence of cubitus varus Open reduction vs closed reduction position | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Surgical fixation versus non‐surgical immobilisation for displaced fractures
Population: children with displaced fractures
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Functional outcome Surgical fixation vs non‐surgical immobilisation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Treatment failure requiring re‐intervention Surgical fixation vs non‐surgical immobilisation | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.87] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Nerve injury Surgical fixation vs non‐surgical immobilisation | RR 2.5 [0.5, 12.46] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Major complications Pin site infections. Surgical fixation vs non‐surgical immobilisation | RR 4 [0.47, 34.11] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cosmetic deformity measured as presence of cubitus varus Surgical fixation vs non‐surgical immobilisation | RR 0.2 [0.04, 1.09] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |