Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37636006›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2023

Proximal humerus fracture

R Pandey, P Raval, N Manibanakar, S Nanjayan, C McDonald, Harvinder Singh

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R PandeyTrauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
P RavalTrauma and Orthopaedic, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
N ManibanakarTrauma and Orthopaedic, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
S NanjayanTrauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
C McDonaldTrauma and Orthopaedic, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Harvinder SinghTrauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The management of proximal humeral fractures (PHF) remains controversial. Its incidence is increasing. Patients should be meticulously assessed clinically for co-morbidities and neuro-vascular injuries. Radiological investigation helps provide information on the fracture configuration and dislocations. Enhanced by 3-dimensional CT scanning, these further help in decision making and operative planning. PHF classifications have been demonstrated to have poor intra-observer and inter-observer reliability. Research has identified some radiographic predictive factors for humeral head ischaemia and likely failure of surgical fixation. The range of management options include non-operative treatment, operative fixation, intramedullary nailing and arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, reverse shoulder replacement). The majority of PHFs are stable injuries and non-operative management is usually successful. Some degree of malunion is readily tolerated especially by elderly patients. Surgical management of significantly displaced, unstable proximal humerus fractures should aim to stabilise the fracture adequately and provide satisfactory function for the long term. Management of the greater tuberosity is pivotal for the eventual outcome. When fixation may appear to be compromised by poor bone quality, likely poor function, age related rotator cuff degeneration or likely humeral head ischaemia clinicians may opt for arthroplasty. Successful hemiarthroplasty outcomes are dependent on sufficient healing of the tuberosity and recovery of the rotator cuff integrity. Reverse shoulder replacement can predictably deliver good functional outcomes for the shoulder in elderly patients, where rotator cuff dysfunction is suspected or as a revision procedure following failure of other surgical interventions. As opposed to hemiarthroplasty, which has shown a downward trend, there has been an increasing trend towards the use of reverse shoulder replacement in proximal humeral fractures. The management of PHFs should be patient specific, fracture specific and meet the functional demands and needs of the individual patient. The surgeon's skill set and clinical experience also plays an important role in the options of management available.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyProximal humerus fractureProximal humerus fracture managementShoulderTraumaUpper limb

Identifiers

PMID37636006
PMCPMC10457443
OpenAlexW4385740116

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.