ArticleJSES international2021
Comparison of direct surgical cost for humeral shaft fracture fixation: open reduction internal fixation versus intramedullary nailing.
Article in JSES international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intramedullary Nail vs. Plate Fixation for Pathological Humeral Shaft Fracture: An Updated Narrative Review and Meta-Analysis of Surgery-Related Factors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Humerus shaft fractures, approaches and management.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2023Review
- Comparison of direct surgical cost and outcomes for unstable elbow injuries: internal joint stabilizer versus external fixation.JSES international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background and/or hypothesisPrior literature has supported similar complication rates and outcomes for humeral shaft fractures treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with a plate/screw construct versus intramedullary nailing (IMN). The purpose of this study is to determine whether surgical encounter total direct costs (SETDCs) differ between ORIF and IMN for these fractures.
methodsAdult patients (≥ 18 years) treated for isolated humeral shaft fractures by ORIF or IMN between June 18, 2014 and June 17, 2019 at a single tertiary academic center were available for inclusion. SETDCs for ORIF and IMN groups, obtained through our institution's information technology value tool, were adjusted to 2019 US dollars and converted to relative costs per institutional policy. SETDCs for ORIF and IMN were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
resultsDemographic factors did not differ between ORIF and IMN cohorts with the exception of age (mean of 18.6 years older for IMN; DISCUSSION AND/OR
conclusionOur study found that the SETDC for humeral shaft fracture fixation was greater for IMN than for ORIF, although patient cohorts differed significantly with respect to age and the American Society of Anesthesiologist class. Surgeons should take these findings into consideration when consenting patients with humeral shaft fractures for the appropriate fixation type.
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.