Locking plate osteosynthesis in displaced 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus

Figures & data

Profile of review

Risk of bias in the observational comparative studies

A	B	C	D	E	F	G
Krivohlavek (2008)	ns	no ^a	yes	no	ns	ns
Solberg (2009b)	yes	yes	no	no	ns	yes
Gradl (2009)	ns	yes	yes	yes ^b	ns	ns
Handschin (2007)	yes	yes	ns	no	ns	yes

^a Young population, mean age 57.4 years (women 64.5 years; men 45.3 years).

^b Classification by senior author.

ns: not specified.

A Study

B Cohort consecutively or randomly sampled

C Cohort representative

D Dropouts or loss to follow-up of < 15%

E Classification procedure adequate

F Outcome blindly assessed

G No conflicts of interests

Krivohlavek M, Lukas R, Taller S, Sram J. Use of angle-stable implants for proximal humeral fractures: prospective study. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2008; 75 (3): 212-20.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP, Paiement GD. Surgical treatment of three and four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2009b; 91 (7): 1689-97.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Gradl G, Dietze A, Kaab M, Hopfenmuller W, Mittlmeier T. Is locking nailing of humeral head fractures superior to locking plate fixation? Clin Orthop 2009; (467) (11): 2986-93.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar