ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Fewer major complications but more pain in reverse shoulder arthroplasty compare with open reduction internal fixation in closed proximal humerus fracture: a National database study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of closed proximal humerus fractures (CPHF) is steadily increasing worldwide. Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) remains the most common surgical technique while reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is becoming a noteworthy approach. The optimal management of CPHF (ORIF vs. RSA) remains complex and continually evolving.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample (2016-2019). Patients with proximal humerus fractures (PHF) treated with ORIF or RSA were included. Demographics, fracture characteristics, comorbidities, and complications were analyzed. Binary logistic regression identified risk factors for complications.
resultsA total of 11,667 patients with CPHF were included (ORIF, n = 2,657 vs. RSA, n = 1,932). Patients undergoing ORIF were younger and incurred lower hospital charges (P < 0.001). Female gender, elective admission rate, and Charlson comorbidity index were significantly higher in those who underwent RSA. Both groups differed in rates of major complications and postprocedural pain (P < 0.001). Implant-related complications (P = 0.046) and total complications (P = 0.157) showed no significant difference. For patients undergoing RSA, those with 3-part fractures (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.50, P = 0.006) and 4-part fractures (OR = 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.23, P < 0.001) had significantly lower odds of implant-related complications compared to those with 1-part fractures.
conclusionRSA may be a considered option for elderly patients with 3- or 4-part fractures and significant comorbidities, as it was associated with fewer major complications and served as a protective factor for implant-related issues. ORIF presents a viable option for 1- or 2-part fractures, given its association with lower postprocedural pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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.