ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Anatomical Considerations of Intramedullary Humeral Nailing and Lengthening.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures in patients under 70 versus patients 70 and over.JSES international · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a curved intramedullary button vs. traditional flat button for proximal biceps tenodesis: a biomechanical study.JSES international · 2025Article
- Radiologic anatomic study of the humeral medullary canal.JSES international · 2024Article
- The Use of Photodynamic Bone Stabilization to Tamponade Bleeding in a Pathologic Humeral Shaft Fracture: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2023Article
- The Impact of Supratrochlear Foramen on Humeri's Medullary Canal Diameter and Its Surgical Implications.Cureus · 2023Article
- Clinical anatomy and biomechanics of the elbow.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intramedullary lengthening, in cases of extensive humeral shortening, offers the advantages of preventing external-fixator-associated problems. The humeral cavity, as the main parameter in nailing, however, has been neglected in recent literature. It was hypothesized that available implants might be too large and therefore increase the risk of intraoperative fractures. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to describe the humeral canal and how it might affect the choice of implant and the surgical approach. Thirty humeri (15 female, 15 male) from clinical patients and anatomical specimens were studied. Specifically, the medullary cavity width (MCW), cortical thickness (CoT), and the course of the medullary canal were examined. The smallest MCW diameters were found at the distal third of the humeral shaft with mean diameters of 10.15 ± 1.96 mm. CoTs of female humeri were significantly smaller than those of male humeri (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.