Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32380687›Full record

ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2020

Synthetic Bone Substitutes and Mechanical Devices for the Augmentation of Osteoporotic Proximal Humeral Fractures: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.

Giuseppe Marongiu, Marco Verona, Gaia Cardoni, Antonio Capone

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Giuseppe MarongiuOrthopedic and Trauma Clinic, Department of Surgical Sciences, Cagliari State University, 09126 Cagliari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2163-454X
Marco VeronaOrthopedic and Trauma Clinic, Department of Surgical Sciences, Cagliari State University, 09126 Cagliari, Italy.
Gaia CardoniOrthopedic and Trauma Clinic, Department of Surgical Sciences, Cagliari State University, 09126 Cagliari, Italy.
Antonio CaponeOrthopedic and Trauma Clinic, Department of Surgical Sciences, Cagliari State University, 09126 Cagliari, Italy.
University of Cagliari · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferent augmentation techniques have been described in the literature in addition to the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the use of cements, bone substitutes, and other devices for the augmentation of proximal humeral fractures.

methodsA systematic review was conducted by using PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, Scopus/EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases according the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines over the years 1966 to 2019. The search term "humeral fracture proximal" was combined with "augmentation"; "polymethylmethacrylate, PMMA"; "cement"; "bone substitutes"; "hydroxyapatite"; "calcium phosphates"; "calcium sulfate"; "cell therapies", and "tissue engineering" to find the literature relevant to the topic under review.

resultsA total of 10 clinical studies considered eligible for the review, with a total of 308 patients, were included. Mean age at the time of injury was 68.8 years (range of 58-92). The most commonly described techniques were reinforcing the screw-bone interface with bone PMMA cement (three studies), filling the metaphyseal void with synthetic bone substitutes (five studies), and enhancing structural support with metallic devices (two studies).

conclusionPMMA cementation could improve screw-tip fixation. Calcium phosphate and calcium sulfate injectable composites provided good biocompatibility, osteoconductivity, and lower mechanical failure rate when compared to non-augmented fractures. Mechanical devices currently have a limited role. However, the available evidence is provided mainly by level III to IV studies, and none of the proposed techniques have been sufficiently studied.

Indexed as

augmentationbone substitutescalcium phosphatescalcium sulfatecementhydroxyapatitePMMApolymethylmethacrylateproximal humeral fracture

Identifiers

PMID32380687
PMCPMC7353588
OpenAlexW3022940880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.