ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2025
Comparative Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Reduction Plate Osteosynthesis Using a Superior Clavicle Plate in Clavicle Shaft Fractures.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 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
- Plate configuration in midshaft clavicle fractures: influence of working length, screw number, and plate length-a retrospective cohort study of 355 patients.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clavicle fractures are a common type of fracture, and the treatment of clavicle shaft fractures involves various implant options and approaches. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of surgical treatment using the minimally invasive technique versus open reduction plate osteosynthesis with a superior clavicle plate featuring lateral extension for clavicle shaft fractures. Methods: This retrospective case-control study included 70 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for displaced clavicle shaft fractures between March 2022 and August 2023: group M (n = 20), which underwent a minimally invasive technique, and group C (n = 41), which underwent open reduction plate osteosynthesis. Clinical outcomes, visual analog scale scores, Constant scores, and hypoesthesia in the area supplied by the superior clavicular nerve were assessed 1 year postoperatively. The time to clinical bone union was also measured from surgery to tenderness resolution. Radiological evaluation included assessment of the number of fracture fragments, measurement of the fracture gap interval, and determination of the time to radiographic bone union. Intraoperative exposure time using the C-arm was also recorded. Results: We observed no significant differences in clinical outcomes and the bone union rates between the 2 groups. However, compared to group C, group M showed a shorter operation time ( Conclusions: This minimally invasive technique, using a superior clavicle plate with lateral extension for clavicle shaft fractures, achieved clinical outcomes and bone union rates that were comparable to those of open reduction plate osteosynthesis, while also offering the advantages of shorter operation time, reduced blood loss, and a lower risk of hypoesthesia.
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.