ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Reverse Versus Modified Judet Approach for Extra-Articular Glenoid Neck and Scapular Body Fractures: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Orthopaedic 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe reverse Judet approach is a modified technique for scapular fractures, designed to reduce tissue damage and minimize surgical morbidity. However, its comparative efficacy and safety relative to the modified Judet approach have not been well established. Therefore, this study aimed to (1) evaluation of the safety and feasibility of reverse Judet approach for scapular fractures and (2) comparing the advantages and disadvantages of reverse Judet and modified Judet approaches in perioperative indicators and postoperative functional recovery.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 40 patients with extra-articular glenoid neck or scapular body fractures admitted between July 2021 and September 2023. The cohort comprised 18 cases in the reverse Judet group and 22 cases in the modified Judet group. Baseline data, surgical parameters (incision length, flap area, operative time, intraoperative blood loss), functional outcomes (DASH score, Constant-Murley score), and complications were recorded.
resultsThere were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The reverse Judet group showed significantly better outcomes compared to the modified Judet group in terms of incision length (15.2 ± 1.3 vs. 20.1 ± 1.0 cm, p < 0.001) and flap area (49.5 ± 6.2 cm
conclusionThe reverse Judet approach offers benefits such as smaller incisions and less tissue damage while providing adequate exposure for fracture reduction and fixation. Functional recovery is similar to that of the modified Judet approach. Its minimally invasive nature and better esthetic results make it a more comprehensive surgical option for posterior shoulder issues. Although this study did not find an increased risk of flap complications, larger studies are necessary to further improve flap design.
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.