ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025
Hemiarthroplasty vs. open reduction and internal fixation for comminuted distal humerus fractures in patients under 65 years: a systematic review.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Comminuted articular fractures of the distal humerus present a significant surgical challenge due to their complexity. Complications are common, and achieving optimal functional outcomes is crucial, particularly in young, active patients. This study aims to compare the outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with those of hemiarthroplasty (HA) in patients under 65 years old. Methods: This study is a systematic review and comparative analysis of patients under 65 years of age with comminuted articular fractures of the distal humerus, identified from the existing literature. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases was conducted using predefined keywords. Only studies providing detailed individual patient data, including preoperative diagnosis and clinical outcomes after either ORIF or HA, were included. Patients were allocated into 2 groups (ORIF and HA) based on the reported surgical procedure. The primary outcomes assessed were functional results (range of motion, pain (visual analog scale); Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; and Mayo Elbow Performance scores) and complication rates. The risk of bias and methodological quality of included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: With an average follow-up of 66 ± 34 months, the 2 groups were comparable in terms of sex, age, follow-up duration, and fracture type according to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen classification. The ORIF group included 74 patients (56.8% female, mean age 52 years), and the HA group included 68 patients (70.6% female, mean age 57 years). No significant differences were found between the groups for visual analog scale; Mayo Elbow Performance Score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; flexion; pronation; and supination. The HA group showed a significantly greater loss of extension (22° vs. 14°, Conclusion: For comminuted distal humerus fractures in young patients, ORIF appears to be the preferred surgical option, offering superior functional outcomes and a lower incidence of complications and heterotopic ossification. HA can be used in highly comminuted fractures that cannot be reconstructed with a solid ligament suture or column osteosynthesis and without olecranon osteotomy.
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.