Table 2.
Study characteristics
| Authors | Year | Location | Study type | Trial summary | Participants | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan8 | 2009 | Malaysia | RCT | Iodophor vs saline dressings | • Distraction osteogenesis • Half pins and fine wires |
6 months |
| Yuenyongviwat9 | 2009 | Thailand | RCT | Sulphadiazine vs dry dressing | • Open tibial fractures • External fixator half pins |
Until union |
| Ogbemudia10 | 2010 | Benin, Nigeria | Case–control | Pin-site dressings. Sulphadiazine and chlorhexidine vs chlorhexidine alone | • 76 patients aged 5–75 37 • half-pin and fine-wire constructs |
Not declared |
| Lee11 | 2012 | Malaysia | RCT | Plain gauze vs gauze impregnated with polyhexamethylene biguanide | • 38 patients (all ages) elective deformity circular frames • 40 limbs • 483 interfaces |
12 weeks |
| Henry12 | 1996 | London, UK | RCT | Pin-site care solution; control; none Gr1; 0.9% NaCl Gr2; 70% ETOH |
• 30 adolescents (11–18) all circular fix | Frame removal 150 days (range 56–244) |
| W-Dahl13 | 2003 | Sweden | RCT | • Daily vs weekly pin-site care | • Osteotomies for OA • Monolateral fixator |
Mean 100 days |
| Patterson14 | 2005 | Multicentre, USA | RCT | • Comparison of pin-care regime techniques • Cleansing solutions; hydrogen peroxide, saline, antibacterial soap • Dressings; Gauze/sponge, 3% bismuth tribromophenate and petroleum gauze |
• 92 patients • Half pins and fine wires • Monolateral and circular fixation |
24 months |
| Cavusoglu15 | 2009 | Turkey | RCT | Cleaning—no solution vs povidone iodine | • 39 adult patients, trauma tibia Ilizarov frames | Frame removal |
| Camathias16 | 2012 | Solomon Islands | RCT | Daily pin-site care vs no care | • (56 patients, 16 female, age 4–68 years, mean 24 years, in total 204 pins) all monolateral Ex-Fix >2/52 | Frame removal mean 55 days (16–158) |
| Camilo17 | 2015 | Brazil | RCT | • Pin-site care solution; NaCl vs povidone |
• 30 patients (31-years-old, 14–59) all circular fix | Frame removal time; mean 273 days (95–726) |
| Subramanyam18 | 2019 | India | RCT | Pin-site care solution: • Control; nil • Gr1; Povidone iodine • Gr2; Silver sulphadiazine • Gr3; Chlorhexidine • Secondary subdivision to daily or weekly care |
• 114 patients (33.7, 15.6) all circular fix • C; 30 • Gr1; 27 • Gr2; 27 • Gr3; 30 |
Frame removal |
| Jalon19 | 2020 | Cantabria, Spain | RCT | Comparison between chlorhexidine-alcohol solution and povidone-iodine solution for pin site | 128 patients • 568 pins • Patients who underwent placement of an external fixator |
Not declared |
| Ferguson20 | 2021 | Multicentre, England, UK | RCT | Comparison between alcoholic chlorhexidine and emollient skin preparation | • 116 patients • Patients with tibial fractures treated with a circular frame |
Not declared |
| Pommer21 | 2002 | Germany | RCT | Hydroxyapatite vs uncoated half pins | • Monolateral fixator distraction osteogenesis | Minimum 12 weeks |
| Piza22 | 2004 | Barcelona, Spain | Quasi-randomised controlled trial | Uncoated conical half pins vs HA-coated half pins | • Children undergoing lengthening for skeletal dysplasia Tibial, femoral and humeral |
530 ± 167 days |
| Davies23 | 2004 | Liverpool, England | Nonrandomised comparative | Comparison of pin-insertion techniques | • External fixation for fracture and reconstruction Wires and half-pins |
Not declared |
| Coester24 | 2006 | Iowa, USA | RCT | SC half pins vs uncoated stainless steel | • 19 patients • Tibial monolateral fixators following trauma |
Mean 16.7 weeks (range 8–31) |
| W-Dahl25 | 2008 | Sweden | RCT | Conical vs self-drilling tapping half pins | • Osteotomies for OA • Monolateral fixator |
Mean 98.5 days |
RCT, randomised controlled trial