Skip to main content

Table 1 The general characteristic of the included studies

From: A systematic review and meta-analysis of two different managements for supracondylar humeral fractures in children

Author

Country

Type of fracture

Age (year)

Intervention

Controls

Outcomes

Follow-up

Study

Ducic 2016 [6]

Serbia

Gartland IIa Gartland IIb Gartland III

6.7 vs 6.1

Closed reduction with percutaneous pinning

Open reduction with Kirschner wire fixation (lateral approach)

1, 2, 3, 4

11.2ā€‰Ā±ā€‰2.3Ā months

RCSs

Kaewpornsawan 2001 [11]

Thailand

NS

7.9 vs 6.8

Closed reduction with percutaneous pinning

Open reduction with Kirschner wire fixation (lateral approach)

1, 2, 3, 4

12Ā months

RCTs

Kazimoglu 2009 [7]

Turkey

Gartland III

5.9 vs 6.5

Closed reduction and percutaneous cross-pinning

Open reduction and internal fixation (lateral incision)

1, 2, 3

29.5Ā months

RCSs

Keskin 2014 [12]

Turkey

NS

Ā 

closed reduction and percutaneous pinning

open reduction and percutaneous pinning(middle incision)

1, 3, 4

3Ā months

RCSs

Lu 2011 [13]

China

Gartland III

NS

closed reduction and pinning

Open reduction and pinning (middle incision)

1, 2, 3, 4

10Ā months

RCTs

Ozkoc 2004 [14]

Turkey

Gartland III

10.7 vs 7.6

closed reduction and pinning

Open reduction and pinning (posteromedial incision)

1,2,3,4

21Ā months

RCSs

  1. 1 cosmetic outcomes based on the criteria of Flynn, 2 clinical outcomes based on the criteria of Flynn, 3 ulnar nerve injury, 4 the occurrence of infection, PCTs prospective controlled trials