ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Treatment of both bone forearm fractures with 2.7 mm plates: a non-inferiority study.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of 2.7 mm plates in treating both bone forearm fractures (BBFFs) compared to the current gold standard of 3.5 mm fixation. More specifically, to determine if 2.7 mm plates are non-inferior to the current standard of 3.5 mm plates.
designRetrospective including patients from 2016-2021.
settingSingle institution, level-1 trauma academic medical center. PATIENTS/
participants77 patients met inclusion criteria, 58 patients underwent fixation with 3.5 mm plates and 19 underwent fixation with 2.7 mm plates.
interventionPlate osteosynthesis with either 2.7 mm or 3.5 mm plate instrumentation.
main outcome measureMaintenance of reduction and achievement of fracture union.
resultsAmong 77 total patients, 19 received 2.7 mm plates and 58 received 3.5 mm plates. There was no difference in age and BMI between groups, but the 2.7 mm group had fewer males (47% vs 79%, p = 0.02). Primary end points of achievement of union (89.5% vs. 79.3%, p = 0.39) and maintenance of reduction (100% vs. 94.8%, p = 0.99), and secondary end points of implant removal (15.8% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.79), return to the operating room (OR) (5.3% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.63), and minor complications (0% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.99) were similar between the 2.7 mm and 3.5 mm groups.
conclusionThis study challenges the current standard of ORIF using 3.5 mm plates for diaphyseal forearm fractures. 2.7 mm plating resulted in at least equivocal achievement of fracture union and thus may be more efficacious given previous studies showing lower refracture risks after implant removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39847126What 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.