Table 6.

Types of pin used

Author	Interventions	No. of patients	No. of pin sites	Patient population	Pin-care regimes	Findings
Pommer, 200221	HA-coated half pins	23	165	Adults undergoing distraction osteogenesis with monolateral fixator	Daily cleaning with Ringer's solution and absorbent cotton dressing	20 pins had PSI in the control group (12%) No PSI in the HA group (0%) Statistically significant
	Uncoated	23	169
W-Dahl, 200825	Conical half pins*	25	100	Monolateral fixators in adults undergoing proximal tibial osteotomies for knee arthritis	Nurse led, weekly clean with chlorhexidine and 70% alcohol and chlorhexidine dressing	Grade I Infection = 18% pins in 48% patients in conical pins vs 20% pins in 44% patients in self-drilling (p = 0.9, significance not stated) Grade II infection = 9% pins in 20% patients in conical pins vs 11% pins in 28% in self-drilling (p = 0.8, significance not stated) Duration of antibiotics: Conical 7 days vs self-drilling 10.5 days (p = 0.16, significance not stated) Mean VAS conical 5 at rest, 12 with activity vs self-drilling 19 rest and 32 activity (p = 0.01, significance not stated) Loosening: Conical 2% loose vs self-drilling 9% (p = 0.03, significance not stated)
Self-drilling, self-tapping half pins (XCaliber, Orthofix)*	25	97
Piza, 200422	HA-coated half pins	23	161	Children undergoing lengthening for skeletal dysplasia	ND	72% PSI in HA vs 93% in uncoated (NS) 22% PSI caused by pseudomonas in HA vs 12% in uncoated (p = 0.037, statistically significant)
	Uncoated conical	23	161
Coester, 200624	SC half pins	ND	33	Fractures definitely managed with external fixators	ND	30% PSI in SC half pins 21% PSI in SS pins (NS)
	Stainless steel (SS) half pins	ND	33

^*HA in metaphysis, uncoated diaphysis; HA, hydroxyapatite; ND, not declared; NS, not statistically significant; SC, silver-coated; SS, stainless steel; VAS, visual analogue score