ArticleOrthopedic reviews2024
Biomechanical comparison of single versus double plate osteosynthesis in acromion type III fractures.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acromion type III scapular spine nonunion open reduction internal fixation with distal clavicular and pelvic plates.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of acromion and scapular spine fracture repair techniques systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: One of complications of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty is acromion fractures, and its therapy is controversial. The aim of the study was to investigate the double-plate osteosynthesis for these fractures. Methods: An acromion type III fracture according to classification of Levy was simulated in 16 human shoulder cadavers, and the specimens were randomly divided into two groups. Single-plate osteosynthesis was performed in the first group (locking compression plate) and double-plate osteosynthesis (locking compression plate and one-third tubular locking plate) in the second group. Biomechanical testing included cycling load and load at failure on a material testing machine. During the test, the translation was measured using an optical tracking system. Results: The load at failure for the single-plate osteosynthesis was 167 N and for the double-osteosynthesis 233.7 N ( Discussion: Results of the biomechanical study showed that double-plate osteosynthesis had biomechanical properties similar to those of single-plate osteosynthesis for an acromion type III fracture at time point zero. The missing advantages of double-plate osteosynthesis can be explained by the choice of plate configuration.
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.