ArticlePloS one2025
Low-profile double plating versus conventional single plating in midshaft clavicle fractures: A retrospective study and initial experience with this novel technique.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dual-plating is associated with lower implant removal rates compared with single-plate fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Pooled it
- A novel concept for splint fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures: a biomechanical feasibility study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Low-profile 2.7 mm VA-LCP plates vs. 3.5 mm LCP plates for midshaft clavicle osteosynthesis: a retrospective comparison.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Augmentation of clavicular fractures by dual plating.International journal of burns and trauma · 2025Article
- Dual mini-plate vs. T-plate fixation for Edinburgh type IB proximal clavicle fractures: a comparative clinical study.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- [Surgical access route and choice of implant in the region of the clavicle shaft].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
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
backgroundLow-profile double plating seems a viable alternative to conventional single plating for fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures. This study aims to compare the two techniques regarding healing, complications, and removal rate.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included all patients >16 years that underwent plate fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures between 2020 and 2022 at one trauma-center. Exclusion criteria encompassed pathological or open fractures, refractures and delayed presentation or treatment more than 14 days after the accident. Patients were categorized into two treatment groups: Single plating (Synthes 3.5mm LCP superior / anterior or Synthes 2.7mm VA-LCP superior) and low-profile double plating (2.0 superior combined with either 2.4 or 2.7mm anterior mini-plate). Treatment groups were compared regarding healing, complications, and removal rate.
resultsA total of 99 patients were included: 74 in the single plating and 25 in the double plating group. Implant failures within the first three months were comparable in both groups (4.0% double plating versus 2.7% single, p = 0.744, of which one was caused by infection). Low-profile double plating had a significantly lower operation duration (95 versus 111 minutes, p = 0.019). Long-term follow-up data was available in 60 patients in the single plating and 20 in the double plating group. The need for reintervention was significantly lower in the double plating group (n = 5, 25.0% vs. n = 31, 51.7%, p = 0.038). These reinterventions were predominantly caused by implant irritation in both groups (n = 4, 20% double plating versus n = 29, 48.3% single plating, p = 0.026). All fractures healed in both groups.
conclusionLow-profile double plating attains comparable healing rates as single plating and has a significantly lower risk for re-intervention as well as a shorter operation duration. The lower reintervention rate is mainly explained by a lower incidence of implant irritation in the double plating group.
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.