ReviewCureus2026
External Fixation for Unstable Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are common injuries, particularly in the elderly population, and their optimal management remains controversial, especially in unstable fracture patterns. External fixation (EF) represents a minimally invasive treatment option that preserves the fracture hematoma and soft tissues while providing stable fixation. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize and critically appraise the available literature on EF as a treatment option for unstable PHFs. Biomechanical studies indicate that, with an optimized number and configuration of pins, the mechanical strength of EF approaches that of locking plate constructs. Despite heterogeneity in the EF systems used across clinical studies, the underlying principles remain similar. The technique is based on closed reduction and percutaneous fixation, resulting in minimal blood loss, shorter operative time, and a relatively short learning curve. These factors, together with the possibility of performing the procedure in the supine position, make EF particularly suitable for polytrauma patients and elderly individuals requiring minimally invasive surgery. Additional advantages include the ability to initiate early postoperative range of motion and removal of the external fixator in an outpatient setting without anesthesia. Clinical outcomes are generally favorable, particularly in two- and three-part PHFs, whereas results in four-part fractures are less predictable and associated with higher complication rates. The most frequently reported adverse event is pin tract infection, which typically does not require revision surgery and is usually managed successfully with systemic antibiotics. However, comparisons across studies are limited by heterogeneity in study design, fracture patterns, EF constructs, and outcome assessment methods. Further comparative and randomized studies are needed to better define the role of EF in the treatment algorithm of unstable PHFs.
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.