ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2020
Clinical outcome and operative cost comparison: Locked compression plate versus reconstruction plate in midshaft clavicle fractures.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of Simple Plate Fixation and Plate Combined with Local Fixation of Broken Ends in the Treatment of Oblique Fracture of Midshaft Clavicle.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- One-Third Tubular Plate Remains a Clinically Good Option in Danis-Weber Type B Distal Fibular Fracture Fixation.Orthopaedic surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and operative cost of a locked compression plate (LCP) and a nonlocked reconstruction plate in the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fracture.
methodsFrom January 2013 till March 2018, a total of 55 patients with acute unilateral closed midshaft clavicle fracture were treated with either a 3.5-mm pre-contoured LCP [32 patients; 25 men and 7 women; mean age: 35 years (range: 19-63 years)] or a 3.5-mm nonlocked reconstruction plate [23 patients; 20 men and 3 women; mean age: 31.4 years (range: 17-61 years)]. The clinical outcomes in terms of fracture union, Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, implant irritation, failure rate, and reoperation rate were evaluated retrospectively. The patient billing records were reviewed to obtain primary operation, reoperation, and total operative cost for midshaft clavicle fracture. These values were analyzed and converted from Malaysia Ringgit (RM) to United States Dollar (USD) at the exchange rate of RM 1 to USD 0.24. All patients were followed up for at least one-year duration.
resultsThe mean time to fracture union, implant irritation, implant failure, and reoperation rate showed no significant difference between the two groups of patients. The mean Quick DASH score was significantly better in the reconstruction plate group with 13 points compared with 28 points in the LCP group (p=0.003). In terms of total operative cost, the LCP group recorded a cost of USD 391 higher than the reconstruction plate group (p<0.001).
conclusionThe 3.5-mm reconstruction plate achieved not only satisfactory clinical outcomes but was also more cost-effective than the LCP in the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic study.
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.