Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37340426›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023

Outcome and complication comparison for intramedullary nail versus open reduction internal fixation in humeral diaphyseal fractures for 2800 matched patient pairs utilizing the Nationwide Readmissions Database.

Kirsi S Oldenburg, Megan E Welsh, Jonathan Brett Goodloe, Richard J Friedman, Josef K Eichinger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Nonunion and Postoperative Complications Associated With Intramedullary Nailing Versus Plate Fixation of Humeral Shaft Fractures.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Kirsi S OldenburgDepartment of Orthopaedics, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, CSB 708, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Megan E WelshDepartment of Orthopaedics, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, CSB 708, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Jonathan Brett GoodloeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, CSB 708, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Richard J FriedmanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, CSB 708, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Josef K EichingerDepartment of Orthopaedics, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, CSB 708, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. joe.eichinger@gmail.com.
Medical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOpen reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and intramedullary nail fixation (IMN) are the predominant repair methods for operative treatment of humeral diaphyseal fractures; however, the optimal method is not fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to analyze whether IMN or ORIF humeral diaphyseal surgeries result in a significantly higher prevalence of adverse outcomes and whether these outcomes were age dependent. We hypothesize there is no difference in reoperation rates and complications between IMN and ORIF for humeral diaphyseal fractures.

methodsData collected from 2015 to 2017 from the Nationwide Readmissions Database were evaluated to compare the prevalence of six adverse outcomes: radial nerve palsy, infections, nonunion, malunion, delayed healing, and revisions. Patients treated for a primary humeral diaphyseal fracture with either IMN or ORIF were matched and compared (n = 2,804 pairs). Patients with metastatic cancer were excluded.

resultsFollowing an ORIF procedure, there was a greater odds of undergoing revision surgery (p = 0.03) or developing at least one of the complications of interest (p = 0.03). In the age-stratified analysis, no significant differences were identified in the prevalence of adverse outcomes between the IMN and ORIF cohorts in the 0-19, 20-39, and 40-59 age groups. Patients who were 60 + had 1.89 times the odds of experiencing at least one complication and 2.04 times the odds of undergoing a revision after an ORIF procedure versus an IMN procedure (p = 0.03 for both). DISCUSSION: IMN and ORIF for humeral diaphyseal fractures are comparable in regard to complications revision rates in patients under the age of 60. Meanwhile, patients 60 + years show a statistically significant increase in the odds of undergoing revision surgery or experiencing complications following an ORIF. Since IMN appears to be more beneficial to older patients, being 60 + years old should be considered when determining fracture repair techniques for patients presenting with primary humeral diaphyseal fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III:

Indexed as

Fracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHumeral FracturesBone NailsBone PlatesFracture Fixation, InternalHumansHumerusInternal FixatorsMiddle AgedOpen Fracture ReductionPatient ReadmissionPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeHumeral shaft fractureIntramedullary nail fixation (IMN)Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD)Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)OutcomesRevision

Identifiers

PMID37340426
PMCPMC10280891
OpenAlexW4381435440

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.