| Title |
Efficacy comparison of intramedullary nails, locking plates and conservative treatment for displaced proximal humeral fractures in the elderly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s144084 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wei Ge, Qi Sun, Gen Li, Guanghua Lu, Ming Cai, ShaoHua Li |
| Abstract |
The incidence of proximal humeral fractures is high in the elderly, and the superior management of these fractures remains a controversy. The study aims to compare clinical outcomes of intramedullary nails, locking plates and conservative treatment for the management of displaced proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. In this prospective study, a total of 198 patients with 2- or 3-part proximal humeral fractures who received fixation of locking plates or intramedullary nails or conservative treatment were included. The primary outcome was the 24-month Constant-Murley score. The secondary outcomes included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, the visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, shoulder range of motion and complication rate. There were no statistically significant differences in the Constant-Murley scores and ASES scores among the plate group, the nail group and the conservative group for 2-part fractures. For 3-part fractures, Constant-Murley scores and ASES scores were lower in the conservative group compared with those in the plate group and the nail group. Besides, the conservative group showed a significantly lower external rotation during follow-ups. The complication rate was comparable among the plate group, the nail group and the conservative group for both 2-part and 3-part fractures. Similar satisfactory functional outcomes can be achieved with the locking plates, intramedullary nails or conservative treatment for 2-part proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. The advantages in functional outcomes favor locking plates and intramedullary nails in the management of 3-part proximal humeral fractures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 27 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,550
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,227
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#50
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.