ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Triceps-sparing versus triceps-splitting approaches for OTA 12A-C and 13A2-3 distal-third humeral shaft fractures have similar 1 year functional outcomes.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Anatomical Study on Canine Cadavers Investigating the Caudolateral Approach Involving the Elevation of the Anconeus Muscle and Splitting of the Triceps Brachii Muscle for the Potential Treatment of T-Y Humeral Fractures.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare functional outcomes of distal third humeral shaft fractures (OTA 12A-C and 13A2-3) treated with either triceps-splitting or triceps-sparing surgical approach. Secondarily, the purpose was to compare healing and complication rates between the two surgical approaches.
methodA retrospective review of a prospectively collected humeral shaft registry was performed from 01/2018-12/2024. Inclusion criteria was: age > 18yo, OTA 12A-C or 13A2-3 distal third humeral shaft fracture, either triceps-splitting or triceps-sparing surgical approach, and minimum 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was 1-year postoperative functional status measured using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score. Secondary outcomes measures included surgical time, radiographic union times, union rates, iatrogenic nerve injury, fracture related infection, hardware failure, reoperation, and documented range of motion (ROM) at last follow-up. Univariate analysis with two-tailed Student's t-tests and chi-square tests was used to compare demographics, injury and surgical characteristics.
resultA total of 39 patients met inclusion criteria: 27 (69.2%) underwent a triceps-splitting approach and 12 (30.8%) a triceps-sparing approach. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics. At final follow-up, functional outcomes were comparable. DASH scores were similar between groups (7.7 ± 13.8 vs 7.0 ± 9.0, p = 0.89), as were fracture healing times (5.5 ± 2.2 vs 6.1 ± 3.6 months, p = 0.63), with all fractures achieving union. Surgical duration was shorter in the splitting group (83 ± 42 vs 103 ± 52 min, p = 0.26), though not statistically significant. No hardware-related complications were reported. Two radial nerve palsies (7.6%) occurred in the splitting group, while one postoperative infection (8.3%) occurred in the sparing group (all p > 0.05). Elbow range of motion was similar. Mean flexion was 137.9 ± 10.0° in the splitting group vs 131.3 ± 30.0° in the sparing group (p = 0.47); mean extension was 2.3 ± 4.7° vs 4.6 ± 5.5°, respectively (p = 0.21).
conclusionThere is no difference in 1-year functional outcomes as measured by the DASH score between the triceps-splitting versus triceps-sparing approach for surgical fixation of the OTA 12A-C and 13A2-3 distal third humeral shaft fractures. Either surgical approach is viable for distal third humeral shaft fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40721679What 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.