MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414645601 · doi:10.1097/bot.0000000000003090

The Impact of Reduction on Survivorship and Outcomes Following Locked Plate Fixation of Proximal Humerus Fractures

2025· article· en· W4414645601 on OpenAlexaff
Troy D. Bornes, Craig E. Klinger, Jeremy F. Kubik, Kathryn A. Barth, Jelle P. van der List, Trenton T. Stevens, Kavita Jain, Ze’ev P. Drukker, David S. Wellman, Dean G. Lorich, David L. Helfet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProximal humerusSurvivorship curveReduction (mathematics)Fixation (population genetics)Orthopedic surgeryShoulder Fracture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) treated with locked plating constructs and assess association between fracture reduction and outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic tertiary care hospital and affiliated level 1 Trauma Center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: All patients treated with proximal humerus locked plating for PHFs (OTA/AO 11A/B/C) by 3 fellowship-trained orthopaedic traumatologists from 2008 to 2020 were screened. Patients were excluded for <12-month follow-up, lack of preoperative radiographic imaging, segmental fracture, isolated tuberosity fracture, humeral nailing, and revision surgery as initial procedure at the study institution. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND COMPARISONS: Fracture pattern, reduction, fixation characteristics, and failure were radiographically evaluated. Functional outcomes were assessed using range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, QuickDASH, Constant score, and SF-12. Survivorship was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Association of variables with failure was assessed. RESULTS: Among 153 patients treated for PHFs with proximal humerus locked plating, there were 23 OTA/AO A-type, 40 B-type, and 90 C-type fractures. Mean follow-up was 66 months, and mean age 59 ± 15 years (68% female). Mean postoperative coronal alignment was 135 degrees, 91% were fixed within 120-150 degrees, and 53% within 130-140 degrees. Sagittal reduction was neutral in 94%. Medial column restoration was achieved in 80%. Survivorship free from revision surgery was 89% at 5 years. Reduction with coronal alignment outside all neutral reduction ranges (120-150 degrees, 125-145 degrees, 130-140 degrees) and sagittal alignment outside neutral were associated with both radiographic failure and revision surgery ( P < 0.05). Preoperative factors associated with failure included female sex, number of fragments, head-split, fracture-dislocation, valgus coronal alignment, and medial calcar displacement ( P < 0.05). Functional outcomes included overall mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 81 ± 21, QuickDASH 16 ± 19, Constant 80 ± 18, SF-12 Physical 50 ± 9, SF-12 Mental 53 ± 8, active forward flexion 145 ± 33 degrees, active abduction 140 ± 35 degrees, active external rotation 73 ± 24 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal humerus locked plating demonstrated a survivorship free from revision surgery of 89% free at 5 years and favorable functional outcomes including mean Constant scores of 80. Fracture reduction was associated with outcome. Reduction with coronal and sagittal alignment outside of neutral were associated with radiographic failure and revision surgery. These findings highlight that favorable functional outcomes can be achieved with restoration of the proximal humerus anatomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TraumaSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207