Talk:Traction splint

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Added

I've added information on the Sager and KTD splints, and then basically done a bit of reordering and reorganising to add the headers. Since I'm no paramedic, someone might want to check the accuracy of my descriptions.

What this page really needs, though, are some images of all four types of splints and additional external links to appropriate pages.

SahRae Hyjo 10:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Evidence to support use their use (traction splints) is poor"

My father, a ww2 radiographer on Malta described how those stretcher bearers able to apply an unspecified splint to a fractured femur had made their names in WW1. The history section appears to contradict the 2nd sentence as does http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zs3wpv4 which also has a picture of the Thomas splint. JRPG (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a contradiction? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay see the problem and it was in the history section Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garbled, potentially inaccurate sentence

This particular sentence has been changed a few times over the years. It currently reads:

A traction splint is commonly used to treat complete long bone fractures of the thigh, femur and not for tibia and fibula area.

It used to read:

A traction splint is commonly used to treat complete long bone fractures of the leg, femur or tibia and fibula area.

First (it is uncited and I'm not an expert, so I can't answer this myself): which is correct? I ask because the first version (with a minor change or two) was introduced by an anonymous user—that after a number of years of the article seemingly being edited by experts. Was it missed because it was a rather minor change in wording even if it was a major change in meaning? Or was it accepted as a correction to a fairly long-standing error?

Second: "thigh, femur and not for" is garbled English, not least because "thigh" and "femur" are, in this context, the same thing. Even the original was garbled—a colon or dash between "leg" and "femur" would have been appropriate, not a comma, though the rest of the sentence would need to be slightly rewritten anyway. I would do this, but the first problem is giving me pause—I really don't know how to rephrase it because I don't know which claim is correct. Instead, while I'm drawing attention to the potential inaccuracy, I'll suggest two possibilities for correcting it.

If the first sentence is correct, it should read:

A traction splint is commonly used to treat complete fractures of the femur, but not of the tibia and fibula. Or just "of the femur". I would assume, if the first is correct, that it's a misconception that these devices are used to treat such injuries of the latter bones (or is outdated practice).

If the second is correct:

A traction splint is commonly used to treat complete fractures of the long bones of the leg: the femur, tibia and fibula.

Attention from an expert to clarify things and preferably to add a reference to the article would be welcome. 108.34.186.243 (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]