Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35655741›Full record

ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2022

Forearm Plate Fixation: Should Plates Be Removed?

Navapong Anantavorasakul, Jonathan Lans, Nicolaas H A Wolvetang, Erik T Walbeehm, Neal C Chen

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interlocking intramedullary nail for forearm diaphyseal fractures in adults-A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and complications.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Navapong AnantavorasakulDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Jonathan LansDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Nicolaas H A WolvetangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Erik T WalbeehmDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Neal C ChenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NLRangsit University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Refracture after both bone forearm fracture fixation may vary with or without plate removal. We tested the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the rate of refracture in patients who have undergone open reduction and internal fixation of a diaphyseal forearm bone who have retained implants versus removed implants. We also studied factors associated with plate removal. Methods: We retrospectively identified 645 adult patients with a total of 925 primary fractures that underwent primary plate fixation of an ulnar or radial shaft fracture between 2002 and 2015 at a single institutional system. Patients with nonunion, pathological fracture or infection were excluded. Independent factors associated with refracture and plate removal were identified using multivariable analysis. Results: Refractures occurred in 6.3% of the fractures that had forearm implant removal, compared to 2.1% of the fractures with retained plates. Refractures were independently associated with plate removal (OR: 3.7, 95% CI: 1.2-11.7, Conclusion: The rate of refracture is higher after plate removal compared to patients who did not have plates removed. Although uncommon, refractures of the radius tend to be more common than a refracture of the ulna. If the implant is symptomatic on the ulnar side, it may be preferable to remove the ulnar implant and retain the radius implant rather than remove both plates when possible. Furthermore, limiting strenuous activity for three months after implant removal is a consideration.

Indexed as

ForearmFractureImplant removalOsteosynthesisPlate removalRefracture

Identifiers

PMID35655741
PMCPMC9117894
OpenAlexW4282936444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.