ReviewJSES international2025
Radial head arthroplasty vs. open reduction and internal fixation in Mason 3 radial head fractures: meta-analysis of prospective trials.
Review in JSES international, 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.
- Radial Head Fractures in Adults: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Review
- Temporary Cemented Spacer for Complex Radial Head Fractures: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Radial head arthroplasty: A pillar of stability in complex elbow fractures.World journal of orthopedics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radial head fractures (RHF) represent about one-third of all elbow fractures, comprising approximately 2%-5% of all fractures sustained. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are as follows: (i) to compare complications rate in patients undergoing radial head arthroplasty (RHA) or open reduction and internal fixation as surgical treatments for Mason type 3 RHF; (ii) to compare clinical outcome and functional score in patients undergoing RHA or ORIF in Mason type 3 RHF. Methods: Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, a comprehensive literature systematic review of literature was conducted up to March 2024. All prospective studies were included. The analysis employed the log odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) as the outcome measure. Results: Six studies were incorporated into the systematic review. A total of three studies, published between 2009 and 2021, were included in the meta-analysis. A cohort of 169 patients affected by Mason 3 RHFs was collected. The ORIF group included 65 patients, and 26 events of complications after ORIF were observed. RHA group, instead, consisted of 70 patients, and 8 events of complications were identified. Conclusion: Our findings reveal that the Mason type 3 RHFs treated with open reduction and internal fixation, exhibits a higher risk of complications compared to those patients treated with RHA. Moreover, the standardized mean difference analysis suggests that the ORIF group demonstrates a lower mean Broberg and Morrey Elbow score in comparison to the RHA group, with a higher functional recovery in RHA 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.