ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2024
Surgical treatment options of displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle in young adults: plate fixation versus intramedullary nailing.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2024. 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.
- Locking Plate with Cerclage Wiring Versus Hook Plate Fixation for Unstable Distal Clavicle Fractures: Is There Still a Role for Hook Plates?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the outcomes and complications of active young adults undergoing open reduction and plate fixation (ORPF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (MCFs).
methodsA retrospective review was performed on all patients undergoing ORPF and IMN of complete MCFs at a single center between 2018 and 2022. Patients who were younger than 60 years with radiographic follow-up until union were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 33.1 years. Outcome measures were achievement of union, time to healing, residual deformity, complications, and need for additional procedures.
resultsOf 39 patients, 29 underwent ORPF and 10 underwent IMN. Plate fixation provided faster functional recovery in the first 6 months, but no difference was observed after 1 year. All fractures in the IMN group healed (100%), compared to 90% in the ORPF group (P=0.08). Mean time to union was 21±8.9 weeks and was significantly different between the two groups (P<0.01), with the ORPF group averaging 23.1 weeks and the IMN group 20.8 weeks. Nonunion rates were higher in the ORPF group (10.3%) than in the IMN group (0%), but the difference was not significant (P=0.08).
conclusionsBoth methods restored patients to their pre-injury functional levels. However, IMN, with its higher healing rate, fewer required revision surgeries, and lower incisional numbness, appears to be the preferred method for treating MSFs without comminution in young adults. Level of evidence: III.
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.