SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2025
Removal of Forearm Plate Leads to a Higher Risk of Refracture-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical Study of Load to Failure of a Bone Model After Removal of a 2.7-mm or 3.5-mm Plate.Cureus · 2026Article
- [Management of forearm shaft fractures : Challenges and solution approaches].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Complication profile and risk patterns following elective implant removal in pediatric fractures: a 10-year retrospective analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Changes in bone density, microarchitecture, and biomechanical properties after plate removal in surgically treated distal radius fractures: a prospective study.International orthopaedics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePlate fixation is the preferred method for treating forearm shaft fractures. However, it remains controversial regarding the necessity of implant removal after bone union. This review aims to assess refracture risk after plate removal.
methodsWe searched various data sources, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. A total of 6749 papers were identified, of which 23 studies were eligible for final quantitative syntheses. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to reduce heterogeneity and make the results more reliable.
resultsThe total risk difference (RD) was 0.06 (0.04-0.09), indicating that the difference was significant. In the "Reasons for Removal" subgroup analysis, the RD of the "No Symptom" subgroup was 0.07 (95% CI = 0.04-0.11), while the RD of the "Symptoms" subgroup was 0.04 (95% CI = -0.02 to 0.10). In the "Plate Type" subgroup analysis, the RD of the "LCP" subgroup was 0.07 (95% CI = 0.02-0.13), while the RD of the "DCP" subgroup was 0.07 (95% CI = 0.01-0.13). After omitting each study one by one, the RDs were all significant.
conclusionsPlate retention is significantly associated with a lower rate of refracture than plate removal. Consequently, it is not recommended to remove implants, especially for patients without implant-related symptoms, but more reliable evidence is still needed.
trial registrationThe review was registered on PROSPERO and the registration ID is CRD42023424743, and a protocol was not prepared.
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.