title: WITHDRAWN: Bioresorbable fixation devices for musculoskeletal injuries in adults.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Bioresorbable implants for musculoskeletal injuries involving bone and ligaments in adults might have significant advantages compared to the conventionally used non-resorbable metal implants because they lead to a gradual transfer of the mechanical load from the implant to the healing bone and do not require a secondary removal operation. Tissue reactions may present a problem and bioresorbable screws are mechanically not as strong as their metal counterparts.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare bioresorbable implants to non-resorbable implants with respect to functional outcome, wound infections, other complications and reoperation rate,in the fixation of bone fractures or re-attachment of soft tissue to bone.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (March 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2004), EMBASE (1988 to February 2004), BL Inside (to February 2004), SIGLE (to February 2004), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials at http//:controlled-trials.com/, and reference lists of articles.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, comparing bioresorbable osteosynthesis with metal osteosynthesis (including titanium and stainless steel implants) were included.
  
  
  METHODS
  Review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were pooled where relevant and possible. Sub-analyses for specific type of fractures and for specific type of tissue reactions were performed. Requests for more information were sent to trialists.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No significant difference between the bioresorbable and other implants could be demonstrated with respect to functional outcome, infections and other complications. Reoperation rates were lower in some of the groups of people treated with bioresorbable implants.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In a selected group of compliant patients with simple fractures, the use of bioresorbable fixation devices might be advantageous.
authors.affiliation: Surgical ICU, University Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30 001, Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, 9700 RB. jsjainandunsing@yahoo.com
authors.forename: Jayant S
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Jainandunsing
authors.forename: Maarten
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: van der Elst
authors.forename: Christian
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: van der Werken
mesh_terms: D000042:Absorption; D000328:Adult; D001672:Biocompatible Materials / Q000378:metabolism / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D020878:Device Removal; D005592:Fracture Fixation / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008022:Ligaments / Q000293:injuries; D009141:Musculoskeletal System / Q000293:injuries*; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D001672:Biocompatible Materials