ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in the management of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: a case-control study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical outcomes and complication rates of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in midshaft clavicular fractures: a comparative study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- MIPO versus ORIF with long proximal humerus locking plate for metadiaphyseal proximal humeral fracture.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and advantages of Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO) for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (DMCFs).
methodsA retrospective case–control study was conducted involving 79 patients with DMCFs treated at our institution between January 2021 and December 2024. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical technique: MIPO (n = 32) and Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) (n = 47). Key parameters—including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, complications, patient satisfaction, and functional recovery outcomes—were compared.
resultsCompared to the ORIF group, the MIPO group demonstrated significantly shorter operative time (54.22 ± 5.14 min vs. 61.15 ± 6.01 min, p < 0.001), reduced intraoperative blood loss (45.44 ± 4.27 mL vs. 52.81 ± 6.60 mL, p < 0.001), and shorter incision length (6.42 ± 0.48 cm vs. 12.25 ± 1.60 cm, p < 0.001). Postoperative supraclavicular nerve injury was less frequent in the MIPO group (12.5% vs. 38.3%, p < 0.001) and patient satisfaction was higher (90.6% vs. 72.3%, p = 0.021). No significant differences were observed in functional outcomes, as assessed by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley scores.
conclusionWhile both surgical techniques yielded comparable functional recovery, MIPO demonstrated distinct intraoperative and early postoperative advantages, including shorter incisions, less blood loss, fewer nerve-related complications, and higher patient satisfaction. These findings support the clinical utility and therapeutic efficacy of MIPO in the management of DMCFs.
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.