ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2023
Clinical comparison of double-plate fixation by the perpendicular plate method versus parallel plate method for distal humeral fracture: a multicenter (TRON group) study.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of parallel and orthogonal plating techniques and the predictive role of Hounsfield unit values in AO/OTA type 13-C distal humerus fractures in patients over 50.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDouble-plating methods are popular, with perpendicular and parallel plate methods being widely used surgical method for the rigid fixation of distal humeral fracture (DHF). However, which plate method is better for DHF remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes including the incidences of complications and reoperation between the two plate methods.
methodsWe extracted 383 patients with DHF undergoing surgery between 2011 and 2020 from our multicenter database, which is named TRON. We divided the subjects into two groups: perpendicular plating group (Group A) and parallel plating group (Group B). To adjust for baseline differences between the groups, patients were matched for age, sex, olecranon osteotomy, AO type, and type of injury. We assessed the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) at 3 and 6 months and the last follow-up month as the clinical outcome. We investigated the incidences of complications and reoperations in both groups.
resultsAfter matching, each group comprised 50 patients. There was no significant difference between Group A versus Group B in MEPS score at each time point. The incidence of implant removal in Group B was higher than that in Group A (26.5% vs 50%, p = 0.023). DISCUSSION: Although there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes or complications between the two groups, the incidence of implant removal was higher in Group B than in Group A. In the parallel plate technique, where the plates have to be placed in areas with thin subcutaneous soft tissue, the incidence of implant removal might be high due to the discomfort caused by the implant.
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.