ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Biomechanical study of two different fixation methods for the treatment of Neer III proximal humerus fractures.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe lateral locking plate for the proximal humerus is currently the most commonly used surgical procedure for the treatment of elderly proximal humeral comminuted fractures. Previous studies have found that the rate of postoperative complications in patients of proximal humerus fractures with medial column involvement is relatively high. Through biomechanical methods, this study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the conventional lateral locking plate fixation along with the addition of the metacarpal supporting plate on the medial column in the treatment for proximal humeral fractures involving the medial column. The goal is to reduce the rate of postoperative internal fixation failure in patients with medial column injury.
methodsThirty artificial synthetic humerus models are used as experimental samples. A proximal humerus fracture model with medial column injury was created, and then divided into two groups. Group A was fixed with a proximal humerus lateral locking plate (single-plate group). Group B was fixed with a proximal humerus lateral locking plate and a metacarpal supporting plate on the medial column (double-plate group). The failure displacement, stiffness, and strength of the repaired proximal humerus fractures with two different methods were tested under compression at posterior extension of 15°, forward flexion of 15°, and vertical direction.
resultsThere was no statistical significance in the comparison of the failure displacement of repaired proximal humeral fractures between the two groups under compression at posterior extension of 15° and forward flexion of 15° (P > 0.05). However, the failure displacement of the fracture was longer in single-plate group than in double-plate group under compression at vertical direction (P < 0.05). The double-plate group was better in terms of biomechanical stiffness and strength compared to the single-plate group at all three testing angles (P < 0.05).
conclusionsFor patients whose proximal humeral fractures involve the medial column, the addition of a support plate on the medial side of the humerus is recommended along with the lateral locking plate. The double-plate strategy can increase the stability of the medial column of the proximal humerus, and enhance the overall biomechanical property of the repaired proximal humerus.
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.