Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 12, 2026
Orthopedic Robot-Assisted Femoral Neck System in the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fracture
Published on: March 3, 2023
Surgical Treatment of Pediatric Open Forearm Fractures: A Comparison of Outcomes With or Without Internal Fixation
Trinity A Kronk1,2, Richard P Steiner2, Todd F Ritzman2
1Department of Biomedical Sciences, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown.
Insights
For pediatric open forearm fractures, casting without implant fixation (NIF) showed similar healing outcomes to implant fixation (IF) in a retrospective study. NIF may reduce operative time, hospital stay, and follow-up visits, especially in younger children.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic surgery
- Pediatric orthopedics
- Traumatology
Background:
- Open forearm fractures in children often receive implant fixation (IF) post-irrigation and debridement (I&D) due to healing concerns.
- The efficacy of non-implant fixation (NIF) via casting alone for these fractures is not well-established.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare outcomes of pediatric open forearm fractures treated with I&D and casting with NIF versus IF.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective review of 77 pediatric patients (2010-2020) with open forearm fractures treated with IF or NIF.
- Implant fixation use was surgeon-dependent.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in sex, fracture type, location, or open grade between groups.
- NIF group was younger (8.2 vs. 10.7 years) and had shorter operative time (41 vs. 77 min), length of stay (1.6 vs. 1.9 days), fewer radiographic sessions, and follow-up visits.
- Time to radiographic healing was longer in the NIF group (110.6 vs. 64.2 days), but immobilization duration was similar.
- No difference in unplanned reintervention rates (4.3% vs. 7.4%).
Conclusions:
- Implant fixation may not be essential for all pediatric open forearm fractures, particularly in younger patients with remodeling potential.
- NIF can lead to reduced operative time, hospital stay, follow-up, and avoids surgical implant removal, potentially lowering treatment costs.
Background:
Pediatric patients with open forearm fractures who undergo operative irrigation and debridement (I&D) are often treated with implant fixation due to concern for delayed healing, nonunion, or loss of alignment. For an open forearm fracture treated with I&D, it is unknown whether reduction and casting alone without implant fixation affects outcomes in young patients. We aim to compare the results of pediatric open forearm fractures treated with I&D and cast immobilization with no implant fixation (NIF) to those treated with implant fixation (IF).
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed pediatric patients treated surgically for an open forearm fracture with IF or with casting and NIF from 2010 to 2020. The use of implant fixation was at the discretion of the surgeon.
Results:
Seventy-seven patients were included (IF 54, NIF 23) without differences between cohorts in sex, fracture type, fracture location, or open grade of fracture. NIF patients were younger (8.2 vs. 10.7 y, P =0.001), as NIF was utilized in 78.3% of patients 10 years or younger. IF was associated with 36 minute longer operative time (77 vs. 41 min, P <0.001), longer length of stay (1.9 vs. 1.6 d, P =0.042), a greater number of radiographic sessions (5.9 vs. 5.1, P =0.038), more follow-up visits (7.1 vs. 5.2, P =0.003), longer time to radiographic healing (110.6 vs. 64.2 d, P =0.003) and longer follow-up (225.8 vs. 80.9 d, P <0.001), as 53.7% underwent elective surgical implant removal. Duration of immobilization was similar (IF 48.9 vs. NIF 55.7 d, P =0.124). There was no difference in incidence of unplanned reintervention (IF 7.4% vs. NIF 4.3%, P =0.999), with 2 deep infections, and 2 refractures requiring reoperation in the IF group and 1 closed reduction and casting in the OR for the NIF group. All fractures were united in satisfactory alignment at final follow-up.
Conclusions:
Implant fixation may not be necessary for all open forearm fractures, especially in patients 10 years or younger with remodeling potential. This would contribute to shorter operative time, length of stay, fewer follow-up visits, and avoidance of surgical implant removal, all of which would contribute to lower cost of treatment.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III-retrospective cohort study.
More Related Videos
15:11Surgical Fixation of Sternal Fractures: Preoperative Planning and a Safe Surgical Technique Using Locked Titanium Plates and Depth Limited Drilling
Published on: January 5, 2015
07:35Creating Rigidly Stabilized Fractures for Assessing Intramembranous Ossification, Distraction Osteogenesis, or Healing of Critical Sized Defects
Published on: April 11, 2012
Related Concept Videos
01:27Fractures: Bone Repair
Minor fractures with no bone displacement are treated by immobilizing the fractured bone using a cast or splint. However, in the case of fractures with displaced bones, the broken bones are repositioned before immobilization to ensure successful healing without deformation and loss of function. The realignment of fractured bone ends is performed through a process called reduction. If the...
01:26Flail Chest-II
Assessment:
1. Clinical Evaluation:
History: