ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Retrospective study comparing first- and new-generation proximal humerus locking plates in 152 proximal humerus fracture cases.
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to compare proximal humerus fracture outcomes in terms of stability and quality of reduction when using the first-generation plate and a new-generation plate. Methods: This retrospective consecutive cohort study included patients with proximal humerus fractures operated between 2007 and 2023 in a level 1 adult trauma center. The inclusion criteria were fracture of the proximal third of the humerus with pre-operative, post-operative, and follow-up radiographs, operated with either one of the plates studied. Arthroplasty, nailing, and conservative management were excluded. Demographic data were collected from the trauma database, and radiological measurements were performed by an independent evaluator. The neck-shaft angle, calcar displacement, greater tubercle height, humeral head offset, and plate position were measured. Results: One hundred fifty-two patients met the inclusion criteria. Sixty-two percent were women (n = 95), with a mean of 59.5 years and an average follow-up time of 24 months. There were 123 first-generation plates and 29 new-generation plates. There was no difference in age, smoking, follow-up time, or initial reduction quality between groups. At the last follow-up, there was a significant difference in plate height. This is influenced by the varus collapse (plate will appear "higher"). The new-generation plate was lower (distance between the plate and the greater tubercle) than the first-generation plate, with 17.6 ± 5.2 mm vs. 13.7 ± 5.6 mm at the early post-operative x-ray, and 15.2 ± 4.3 mm vs. 11.4 ± 4.7 mm at the last radiograph ( Conclusions: These medium-term outcomes showed an acceptable plate position with the new-generation plate and less secondary humeral head displacement.
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.