ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Effect of cerclage wiring on humeral shaft fracture associated with the third fragment.
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
introductionIn humeral shaft fractures, the presence of a free bone fragment, called the third fragment or butterfly fragment, is thought to induce non-union. We hypothesised that non-union and subsequent reoperations could be reduced by performing cerclage wiring for fragments, in addition to intramedullary nailing for fractures with the third fragment. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of cerclage wiring for the third fragments associated with humeral shaft fractures. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study included patients with humeral shaft fractures involving the third fragment, who underwent osteosynthesis with intramedullary nailing at our institution between April 2013 and June 2024. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent osteosynthesis using an intramedullary nail alone (Group1) and those who underwent osteosynthesis using an intramedullary nail with cerclage wiring (Group2). Patient and injury characteristics, surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, fracture healing, time to bone union, and reoperation were investigated and compared between the two groups.
resultsSixteen patients were included in Group1 and 27 patients were included in Group2. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics or injuries. Surgical time was significantly longer (p = 0.01) and intraoperative blood loss was significantly greater (p = 0.01) in Group2. There were no significant differences in the rates of infection and postoperative nerve paralysis (p = 1, 0.522). The rates in non-union was significantly higher in Group1 (p = 0.05). There were no significant differences in reoperation rate (p = 0.137). In cases where fracture healing was achieved, the time to bone union was significantly longer in Group1 (p < 0.001).
conclusionCerclage wiring, in addition to intramedullary nailing for fractures with a third fragment, may prevent non-union. Although the addition of cerclage wiring significantly increased the surgical time and intraoperative blood loss, there was no increase in postoperative complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40372626What 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.