SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of different posterior surgical approaches for Intra-articular distal humerus fractures.
Synthesis 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically compare the clinical efficacy and safety of four posterior surgical approaches-olecranon osteotomy (OO), triceps-reflecting approach (TRA), triceps-splitting approach (TS), and triceps tongue approach (TT)-for the treatment of AO/OTA type C complete intra-articular distal humerus fractures, and to provide evidence-based guidance for surgical approach selection.
methodsThis study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and major Chinese databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials published up to September 2025. Eligible studies included patients with AO/OTA type C complete intra-articular distal humerus fractures treated using OO, TRA, TS, or TT approaches. Primary outcomes included the rate of excellent or good functional outcomes, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and overall complication rate. A network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0, calculating odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Between-study heterogeneity (τ
resultsA total of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 1,258 patients with AO/OTA type C complete intra-articular distal humerus fractures were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences among the four posterior approaches with respect to the rate of excellent or good functional outcomes, MEPS, operative time, or intraoperative blood loss. SUCRA rankings suggested that OO ranked relatively higher for functional outcome and operative time, while TS ranked higher for intraoperative blood loss; however, none of these comparisons reached statistical significance. Regarding overall complication rates, TRA was associated with a lower risk of complications compared with OO, whereas TS showed a higher complication rate than OO. No statistically significant differences were observed in the remaining comparisons.
conclusionCurrent evidence indicates that OO, TRA, TS, and TT posterior approaches provide comparable overall clinical outcomes in the management of AO/OTA type C complete intra-articular distal humerus fractures, with most outcome measures showing no statistically significant differences. SUCRA rankings reflect only relative probability trends within the network model and should not be interpreted as substitutes for effect sizes or statistical significance. Surgical approach selection should therefore be individualized based on fracture characteristics, soft tissue conditions, and surgeon experience.
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.