ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Compression nailing versus compression plating for management of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 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
Background: Compression plate osteosynthesis is the preferred treatment for diaphyseal humerus fractures. In contrast, intramedullary interlocking nailing offers many advantages but lacks in providing compression across the fracture site. We aimed to do a prospective cohort study to compare the compression plating (CP) technique with the novel compression nailing (CN) technique for diaphyseal humeral fractures. Methods: The study was performed with a total of 32 patients included in the study, who were further divided into two groups: Group CN (n = 16) and Group CP (n = 16). An external compression device was used along with a standard antegrade humeral nailing system to achieve compression across the fracture site. The Rodriguez-Merchan criteria and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score at six months were used for the functional evaluation in these patients. Results: In this study cohort, the mean age was 35 ± 12.02 years. The total mean operative time was 85.86 ± 10.62 min for Group CN and 87.69 ± 3.82 min for Group CP (p value = 0.48, student 't' test), and the total mean blood loss during surgery was 81.25 ± 9.21 ml for Group CN and 202.88 ± 16.86 ml for Group CP (p value = 0.001, student 't' test). The mean duration of follow-up in Group CN was 31.31 ± 7.99 weeks, while in Group CP it was 31.56 ± 7.30 weeks. According to Rodriguez-Merchan criteria, 12 had (75 %) excellent, three (18.75 %) had moderate, and one (6.25 %) had poor results. Whereas in Group CP, there were 13 (81.25 %) excellent results, two (12.5 %) moderate results, and one (6.25 %) poor result (p-value = 0.887, chi-square test). Conclusion: The compression nailing group was found to have an upper hand in terms of significantly less blood loss and less soft tissue dissection required as compared to compression plating. With compression nailing, we were able to achieve controlled compression across the fracture site.
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.