ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
External fixation versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures in the elderly: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal management of displaced proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) in the elderly remains a subject of ongoing debate. This study aims to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of biologically driven external fixation (EF) versus functional joint replacement via reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients aged 65-80 years.
methodsA retrospective comparative study was conducted on patients with displaced Neer two- or three-part PHFs treated between 2015 and 2022. The final analysis included 67 patients: Group A (EF; n=34) and Group B (RSA; n=33). Clinical and functional outcomes were quantified using the Constant-Murley Score (CMS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Quick-DASH) score, and Range of Motion (ROM) assessment. Patient satisfaction was evaluated via a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsBoth cohorts were homogeneous regarding mean age (72.2 ± 3.5 vs. 73.4 ± 3.8 years). Group A demonstrated significantly shorter mean operative times (48.2 ± 10.5 vs. 92.4 ± 15.2 min; p < 0.001) and a lower requirement for blood transfusions (0% vs. 12.1%; p < 0.05). At the final follow-up, both cohorts achieved comparable CMS (58.4 ± 8.2 vs. 55.2 ± 10.1; p = 0.42), SST (7.6 ± 1.5 vs. 7.0 ± 1.4; p = 0.38), and ASES scores (69 ± 7.8 vs. 65 ± 9.4; p = 0.51). Group A exhibited significantly superior external rotation (60.9° ± 9.2° vs. 46.5° ± 10.1°; p < 0.01) and a trend toward better internal rotation (49° ± 16.2° vs. 42° ± 17.1°; p = 0.09). Subjective satisfaction was comparable (Likert score: 3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 2.9 ± 0.9; p = 0.16). The overall complication rate was 20.6% in Group A and 12.1% in Group B (p = 0.51).
conclusionsBoth EF and RSA are effective for managing PHFs in the elderly, yielding similar functional outcomes. However, EF represents a significantly less invasive, "bio-friendly" alternative, offering shorter surgical duration, no transfusion risk, and superior restoration of physiological rotations. The preservation of native anatomy and high patient satisfaction support EF as a viable treatment option in the geriatric population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.
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.