ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Refracture after implant removal of the clavicle: a retrospective cohort analysis.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRefracture after implant removal in clavicle fractures is a relevant but insufficiently studied complication. Reported refracture rates vary due to small cohorts and heterogeneous populations. This study aims to determine the incidence of refracture following elective implant removal after confirmed fracture union and to identify potential demographic, clinical, and fracture-related risk factors.
methodsA retrospective cohort of 575 adults who underwent implant removal after radiographically confirmed union between 2011 and 2024 was analyzed. Patients were assigned to a refracture (R) or non-refracture (NR) group. Demographics, fracture characteristics, treatment variables, and time intervals were analyzed.
resultsRefractures occurred in 21/575 patients (3.7%). No significant differences were observed between the R and NR groups regarding age, BMI, ASA classification, or tobacco use. The interval between initial fixation and implant removal was shorter in the refracture group but not statistically significant (18.8 ± 8.7 vs. 21.2 ± 18.5 months; p = 0.55). Most refractures occurred at the original fracture site (n = 19; 90.5%) and were mostly midshaft fractures (n = 18; 85.7%). Only the AO 15.2C fracture type showed a significant association with refracture (R: 11.1% vs. NR: 1.9%; p = 0.005). In time-to-event analysis, AO 15.2C fractures were independently associated with refracture (HR 6.70, 95% CI 1.49-30.12; p = 0.013). Refracture-free survival was 97.4% at 1 year and 96.2% at 10 years. Implant removal was most frequently performed due to patient preference (R: 66.7% vs. NR: 50%).
conclusionRefracture after clavicle implant removal is an uncommon yet clinically relevant complication. The overall refracture rate was 3.7% in the present study. Neither demographic variables nor implant retention time were significantly associated with refracture risk, whereas fracture morphology-specifically complex midshaft fractures (AO 15.2C)-was the only significant risk factor identified. Fracture morphology should therefore be a key consideration when deciding on elective implant removal. Further prospective research is needed to refine guidelines on optimal timing and patient selection.
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.