Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40911224›Full record

ReviewUnfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025

[Management of forearm shaft fractures : Challenges and solution approaches].

Lotta Hielscher, Hermann Josef Bail

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lotta HielscherKlinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Klinikum Nürnberg, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität, Breslauer Straße 201, 90471, Nürnberg, Deutschland.
Hermann Josef BailKlinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Klinikum Nürnberg, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität, Breslauer Straße 201, 90471, Nürnberg, Deutschland. hermann-josef.bail@klinikum-nuernberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forearm shaft fractures are the most common fractures of the upper extremity in young adults. By definition, these fractures are diaphyseal fractures; however, due to the complex functional unity formed by the forearm shaft during motion both bone forearm fractures are treated as intra-articular fractures [1, 3]. This is why the gold standard of treatment in adults is osteosynthesis. The aim of the surgical intervention is the anatomical reduction with exact reconstruction of length, shaft axis and rotation. This particularly concerns Monteggia and Galeazzi fractures where the adjacent joint needs to be addressed and/or the joint must be fixated to gain a precise joint position [2, 9]. Instability of the interosseous membrane must also be kept in mind, which is classically accompanied by comminuted radial head fractures (Essex-Lopresti injury) but can also occur with shaft fractures after complex and massive trauma [9, 10]. Complications with these three types of injury occur when the joint involvement is overlooked and hence must be specifically searched for [9]. A typical complication after forearm fractures is the formation of pseudarthrosis [4, 5, 11, 12]. For prevention, a procedure must be selected that preserves the soft tissue and periosteum as much as possible; locking plates enable a stable fixation without compression of the periosteum [1, 4]. Nerve damage can occur either posttraumatically or after surgical intervention and is frequently seen with very proximal forearm fractures [3, 5, 12]. Refractures are rarely seen with inlaying implants but commonly occur after implant removal, which is why it should be done 24 months postoperatively at the earliest [2, 5, 13]. With concomitant fractures of the radius and ulna there is a high risk of synostosis which often leads to considerable impairment of movement [5, 11, 12]. In some cases, especially with traumatic brain injury, a synostosis cannot be avoided even with preventative measures and subsequently must be resected [5]. Furthermore, insufficient osteosynthesis or implant failure can lead to axial malalignment and subsequently to limited rotational mobility [5]. The renewed open anatomical reduction with compression osteosynthesis and secure plate fixation, fixated with three screws proximal and distal to the fracture, enables an exact reconstruction of the bone shape as well as the avoidance of secondary malalignment through implant loosening [1, 5].

Indexed as

Forearm InjuriesFracture Fixation, InternalRadius FracturesUlna FracturesAdultHumansPseudarthrosisEssex-Lopresti injuryFracture osteosynthesisGaleazzi fracturesMonteggia’s fractureSynostosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.