ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Quadrilatral plate stabilization: Conventional reconstruction plate or anatomical plate: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Quadrilateral plate fractures are a persistent challenge to orthopedic surgeons. The last decade has seen the development of novel anatomical plates for fixation of these fractures but they haven't been widely adopted. The aim of this study was to study the literature published on plate fixation of quadrilateral plate fractures and analyse the differences between the time-tested reconstruction plate and anatomical plate. Methods: PRIMSA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed and the search was performed on 3 databases - PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE. The study was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under the registration number CRD420251017775. 12 studies of which 4 were comparative were chosen after thorough screening and a meta-analysis was performed between reconstruction plates and anatomical plates to study the intra-operative and post-operative results. The studies were conducted between 2007 and 2021. Results: 583 patients with an average age of 55.45 years of which 75.8 % were males were studied. Intraoperatively, surgical time and blood loss were found to be significantly less in the anatomical plate group versus the reconstruction plate group. Quality of reduction as per Matta's criteria and long term outcomes reported as per Merle's score were found to be similar in both the groups. The rate of complications was higher in the reconstruction plate group. Conclusion: The anatomical plate is better for fixation of quadrilateral plate fractures in terms of intraoperative blood loss and operative time. However, the long term outcomes are equivocal.
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.