Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37526265›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2023

Proximal humerus fractures: deltopectoral open reduction and internal fixation vs deltosplit minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: which surgical approach provides superior results?

Lorenzo Massimo Oldrini, Alessandro Sangiorgio, Pietro Feltri, Francesco Marbach, Giuseppe Filardo, Christian Candrian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Does the operative technique (MIPO vs. ORIF) influence surgical outcomes and complications in proximal humerus fractures? A matched-pair analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lorenzo Massimo OldriniService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4302-6246
Alessandro SangiorgioService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9550-5412
Pietro FeltriService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5357-8311
Francesco MarbachService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.
Giuseppe FilardoService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8136-0977
Christian CandrianService of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3543-981X
Università della Svizzera italiana · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the two main surgical approaches to address proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) stratified for Neer fracture types, to demonstrate which approach gives the best result for each fracture type. Methods: A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to 4 January 2022. Inclusion criteria were studies comparing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with deltopectoral (DP) approach and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with deltosplit (DS) approach of PHFs. Patient's demographic data, fracture type, Constant-Murley Score (CMS), operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, fluoroscopy time, and radiological outcomes were extracted. Results were stratified for each type of Neer fracture. Results: Eleven studies (798 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. No functional difference was found in the CMS between the two groups for each type of Neer (P = n.s.): for PHFs Neer II, the mean CMS was 72.5 (s.e. 5.9) points in the ORIF group and 79.6 (s.e. 2.5) points in the MIPO group; for Neer III, 77.8 (s.e. 2.0) in the ORIF and 76.4 (se 3.0) in the MIPO; and for Neer IV, 70.6 (s.e. 2.7) in the ORIF and 60.9 (s.e. 6.3) in the MIPO. The operation time in the MIPO group was significantly lower than in the ORIF group for both Neer II (P = 0.0461) and Neer III (P = 0.0037) fractures. Conclusion: The MIPO with DS approach demonstrated no significant differences in the results to the ORIF with DP approach for the different Neer fractures in terms of functional results, with a similar outcome, especially for the Neer II and III fracture types. The MIPO technique proved to be as safe and effective as the ORIF approach.

Indexed as

deltopectoraldeltosplitMIPONeer classificationORIFPHFproximal humeral fracture

Identifiers

PMID37526265
PMCPMC10441256
OpenAlexW4385443002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.