Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30805708›Full record

Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2019

Cement augmentation of the proximal humerus internal locking system in elderly patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Clemens Hengg, Stefaan Nijs, Tim Klopfer, Martin Jaeger, Andreas Platz, Tim Pohlemann, Reto Babst, Jochen Franke, Franz Kralinger

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01847508 (A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial to Investigate the Treatment Outcome of PHILOS Screw Augmentation Compared to PHILOS Without Augmentation in Older Adult Patients With Proximal Humerus Fractures), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01847508 nacompletednot on this map

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial to Investigate the Treatment Outcome of PHILOS Screw Augmentation Compared to PHILOS Without Augmentation in Older Adult Patients With Proximal Humerus Fractures

TypeinterventionalSponsorAO Clinical Investigation and Publishing DocumentationRan2013 to 2018Enrolled69ConditionsHumerus Fractures, Closed Fracture of the Proximal HumerusArmsPHILOS+, PHILOS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The effects of augmentation choices for locking plate fixation in proximal humerus fracture osteosynthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Cement augmentation for proximal humerus fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. The fragility and reverse fragility indices of proximal humerus fracture randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  7. Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  8. Clinical validation of the DRoPH score: a preoperative tool for estimating reduction difficulty in proximal humerus fractures.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Does the magnitude of injuries affect the outcome of proximal humerus fractures treated by locked plating (PHILOS)?European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Clemens HenggDepartment for Trauma Surgery, A.ö. Landeskrankenhaus - Universitätskliniken Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Stefaan NijsDepartment of Traumatology, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Tim KlopferDepartment for Traumatology and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Trauma Center, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Schnarrenbergstrasse 95, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Martin JaegerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center-Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Strasse 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Andreas PlatzDepartment of Traumatology, City Hospital Triemli Zurich, Birmensdorferstrasse 497, 8063, Zurich, Switzerland.
Tim PohlemannDepartment of Trauma-, Hand- and Reconstructive Surgery, Saarland University, Kirrberger Strasse, Bldng. 57, 66421, Homburg, Germany.
Reto BabstDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Spitalstrasse, 6000, Lucerne 16, Switzerland.
Jochen FrankeClinic for Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, Ludwig-Guttmann-Strasse 13, 67071, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Franz KralingerMedical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria. franz.kralinger@meduniwien.ac.at.

Funding

AO Foundation N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCement augmentation of the proximal humerus internal locking system (PHILOS) screws might reduce complication rates in osteoporotic bones. This study compared the risk of mechanical failure during the first year after PHILOS™ treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHF) without (control group) and with (augmented group) screw augmentation. Secondary objectives were to report shoulder functions, quality of life (QoL), adverse events (AEs), and reoperation rates. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis multicenter randomized trial enrolled patients aged ≥ 65 years with displaced/unstable PHF from eight European centers. Randomization was performed during surgery through sealed opaque envelopes. Mechanical failures were assessed by two independent reviewers via radiographs, shoulder function by Quick DASH, SPADI, and Constant Murley scores, and QoL by EQ-5D. Follow-ups were planned at postoperative 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months.

resultsThe preliminary analysis of 6-week radiographs of the first 59 enrolled patients suggested a mechanical failure rate lower than expected and the difference between groups was too small to be detected by the planned sample size of 144. The trial was prematurely terminated after 67 patients had been enrolled: 34 (27 eligible) in the control group and 33 (29 eligible) in the augmented group. Follow-ups were performed as planned. Nine patients had mechanical failures and the failure rates (95% CI) were: augmented group, 16.1% (5.5; 33.7); control group, 14.8% (4.2; 33.7); the relative risk (95% CI) for the augmented group was 1.09 (0.32; 3.65) compared to the control group (p = 1.000). No statistically significant differences in shoulder function, QoL, and AEs were observed between study groups at 1 year. Nine patients (15.8%) underwent a revision.

conclusionsDue to premature termination, the study was underpowered. A larger study will be necessary to determine if cement augmentation lowers the risk of mechanical failure rate.

Indexed as

Fracture Fixation, InternalFractures, BoneHumerusOsteoporotic FracturesPostoperative ComplicationsAgedBone CementsBone ScrewsEarly Termination of Clinical TrialsFemaleHumansMaleOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRadiographyShoulderBone CementsAugmentationMulticenter randomized trialOsteoporosisPHILOSProximal humerus fractureProximal humerus internal locking system

Identifiers

PMID30805708
PMCPMC6570671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.