ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Posterior and Anterolateral Surgical Approaches in Treating Adult Humeral Shaft Fractures.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Comparative Analysis of Anterolateral and Posterior Approaches for Distal Humerus Shaft Fractures: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes and complications of two different surgical approaches, the anterolateral and posterior approaches, for treating humeral shaft fractures. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween January 2015 and May 2021, 51 patients with humeral shaft fractures were treated with anterolateral and posterior approaches. Twenty-nine patients were operated with the posterior approach (group 1) and 22 with the anterolateral approach (group 2). Statistical analyses were performed between the two groups regarding age, gender distribution, fractured side, body mass index (BMI), type of trauma, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification, and follow-up time. Complications such as operative time, amount of bleeding, incision length and implant fracture, radial nerve palsy, wound infection, and nonunion were compared between the two groups. Functional results of the elbow joint were evaluated with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score.
resultsThe mean follow-up period was 49.10±21.15 months (12-75 months) in group 1 and 50.00±23.71 months (range: 15-70 months) in group 2. There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of age, gender distribution, fractured side, BMI, trauma type, AO/OTA classification, and follow-up time (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and incision length (p>0.05). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 77.24±20.03 (range: 70-100 points) in group 1 and 81.36±8.34 (range: 70-100 points) in group 2, and no significant difference was found (p>0.05). When evaluated in terms of complications, there was no significant difference between the groups (p>0.05). While there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding elbow joint range of motion, the limitation was observed in more patients in group 1.
conclusionSimilar satisfactory treatment results were obtained in patients who underwent anterolateral and posterior approaches in treating humeral shaft fractures. Furthermore, no difference was found between the two approaches regarding complication rates.
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.