ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Does the addition of demineralized bone matrix to fixation of acute comminuted clavicle fractures affect healing 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. 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
purposeTo assess the healing outcomes of patients who sustained a comminuted clavicle fracture and underwent operative fixation with or without the addition of demineralized bone matrix (DBM).
methodsA total of 271 comminuted midshaft clavicle fractures that presented to our hospital system and underwent operative fixation with a plate and screw construct were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected include patient demographics, initial injury information, and use of demineralized bone matrix during surgery to enhance bone healing. Patients were grouped based on whether or not their fixation was augmented with DBM. Fracture-related infection (FRI), lack of fracture healing, and the need for revision fracture surgery were reviewed. Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder and screw back out were categorized as "minor complications." Clinical healing was defined as non-tenderness about the fracture site, and radiographic healing was defined as presence of bridging callus and lack of fracture line on X-ray. Chi-square, T-test, and linear regression analysis were used to determine any significant differences between cohorts.
resultsSixty-nine patients had DBM used in their repair, and 202 patients did not. Cohorts had a similar follow-up (range: 6-18 months). There were no differences in patient demographics or fracture pattern between the two groups (P > 0.05 for all). There were no differences in major and minor complications; however, the cohort treated with DBM had shorter time to radiographic healing, confirmed with regression analysis (P < 0.05).
conclusionAugmentation of midshaft clavicle fracture constructs with DBM was associated with quicker radiographic healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40879830What 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.