{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,9]],"date-time":"2026-08-09T18:41:14Z","timestamp":1786300874559,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":17,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"8","content-domain":{"domain":["lww.com","ovid.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]},"abstract":"\n OBJECTIVES:<\/jats:title>\n To compare 2 methods of initial immobilization of closed humeral shaft fractures\u2014coaptation splinting followed by delayed functional bracing and immediate functional bracing\u2014with respect to pain, satisfaction, and skin-related complications during the initial 10-day post-injury period.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n METHODS:<\/jats:title>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Design:<\/jats:title>\n Multicenter, randomized, two-arm, parallel clinical trial.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Setting:<\/jats:title>\n One academic medical center with 2 Level 1 academic trauma centers and 1 tertiary care orthopaedic center.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Patient Selection Criteria:<\/jats:title>\n Patients with acute, closed humeral shaft fractures (AO\/OTA 12A, 12B, 12C) were randomized to either initial coaptation splinting followed by delayed transition to Sarmiento bracing or immediate Sarmiento bracing.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Outcome Measures and Comparisons:<\/jats:title>\n Pain intensity over time measured by a patient-reported Likert scale (numerical rating scale, 0\u201310) once daily at the same time during the first 10 days post-injury, skin-related complications (skin damage ranging from abrasion or blistering to full-thickness skin loss secondary to pressure from the splint or brace), analgesic consumption in morphine milligram equivalent (MME), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function scores, and patient satisfaction.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n RESULTS:<\/jats:title>\n \n Fifty-eight patients were included in the analysis with a mean age of 48.8\u00a0\u00b1\u00a023.9 years (mean 50.5 years [range 18.4\u201392.2 years] in the coaptation splint group vs. mean 47.3 years [range 19.7\u201385.9 years] in the immediate Sarmiento brace group). Patients in the immediate Sarmiento bracing group reported significantly higher pain scores compared with coaptation splinting during the first 10 days postinjury (mean treatment effect = 0.97 points, 95% CI [0.26\u20131.69],\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.010; Figure 3). Cumulative opioid consumption over the 10-day period was similar between groups (median 20.0 MME for the coaptation splint group vs. 32.5 MME for the Sarmiento brace group,\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.308). PROMIS Physical Function scores were not significantly different between groups on postinjury day 7 (median 53.0 [IQR 44.5\u201368.5] for the splint group vs. 51.1 [IQR 45.0\u201360.5] for the brace group,\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.756). The rate of skin-related complications was higher in the Sarmiento brace group (33.3% vs. 7.1%,\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.022). Patient satisfaction scores at day 7 were not significantly different between groups (6.3\u00a0\u00b1\u00a02.7 for the coaptation splint group vs. 5.8\u00a0\u00b1\u00a03.1 for the Sarmiento brace group,\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.520).\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n CONCLUSIONS:<\/jats:title>\n Immediate Sarmiento bracing was associated with increased patient-reported pain (roughly 1 point on the 0\u201310 numeric rating scale) and higher skin complication rates during the initial 10-day period after injury compared with initial coaptation splinting for acute humeral shaft fractures, without demonstrable benefits in function, analgesic requirements, or patient satisfaction. These findings support the traditional approach of initial coaptation splinting followed by delayed transition to functional bracing once acute swelling subsides.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:<\/jats:title>\n Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1097\/bot.0000000000003196","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,17]],"date-time":"2026-07-17T13:00:19Z","timestamp":1784293219000},"page":"408-415","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/lww.0000000000001000","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Comparison of Early Bracing Versus Splinting for the Initial Treatment of Acute Humeral Shaft Fractures (The COBRAS Trial)"],"prefix":"10.1097","volume":"40","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-7627-775X","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Matthew T.","family":"Kingery","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, NY; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-6609-2065","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Abhishek","family":"Ganta","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, NY; and"},{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Queens, NY."}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-0341-7683","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Kenneth A.","family":"Egol","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, NY; and"},{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Queens, NY."}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"276","reference":[{"key":"R1-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1792","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2020.3182","article-title":"Effect of surgery vs functional bracing on functional outcome among patients with closed displaced humeral shaft fractures: the FISH randomized clinical trial","volume":"323","author":"R\u00e4m\u00f6","year":"2020","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"key":"R2-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"596","DOI":"10.2106\/00004623-197759050-00004","article-title":"Functional bracing of fractures of the shaft of the humerus","volume":"59","author":"Sarmiento","year":"1977","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am."},{"key":"R3-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"478","DOI":"10.2106\/00004623-200004000-00003","article-title":"Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis","volume":"82","author":"Sarmiento","year":"2000","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am."},{"key":"R4-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1420","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.22.01386","article-title":"Operative and nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a cost-effectiveness analysis","volume":"105","author":"Farid","year":"2023","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am."},{"key":"R5-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"508","DOI":"10.1001\/jamasurg.2025.0301","article-title":"Operative vs nonoperative management of fractures of the humeral diaphysis: the humeral shaft fracture fixation randomized clinical trial","volume":"160","author":"Oliver","year":"2025","journal-title":"JAMA Surg."},{"key":"R6-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1969","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jse.2022.02.033","article-title":"Humeral shaft fractures: a cost-effectiveness analysis of operative versus nonoperative management","volume":"31","author":"Fox","year":"2022","journal-title":"J Shoulder Elbow Surg."},{"key":"R7-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"783","DOI":"10.5312\/wjo.v15.i8.783","article-title":"Clinical effect of operative vs nonoperative treatment on humeral shaft fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials","volume":"15","author":"Li","year":"2024","journal-title":"World J Orthop."},{"key":"R8-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.3928\/01477447-20100625-16","article-title":"Outcome of nonoperative vs operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a retrospective study of 213 patients","volume":"33","author":"Denard","year":"2010","journal-title":"Orthopedics"},{"key":"R9-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"259","DOI":"10.1007\/s10195-017-0459-6","article-title":"Humeral shaft fractures: national trends in management","volume":"18","author":"Schoch","year":"2017","journal-title":"J Orthop Traumatol."},{"key":"R10-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"206","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000001666","article-title":"Modern results of functional bracing of humeral shaft fractures: a multicenter retrospective analysis","volume":"34","author":"Serrano","year":"2020","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma."},{"key":"R11-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"245","DOI":"10.1016\/S0020-1383(05)80008-7","article-title":"Fracture bracing the humerus","volume":"23","author":"Camden","year":"1992","journal-title":"Injury"},{"key":"R12-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e87","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jse.2017.10.028","article-title":"Humeral shaft fractures","volume":"27","author":"Updegrove","year":"2018","journal-title":"J Shoulder Elbow Surg."},{"key":"R13-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"833","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jse.2010.11.030","article-title":"Humeral shaft fractures: a review","volume":"20","author":"Walker","year":"2011","journal-title":"J Shoulder Elbow Surg."},{"key":"R14-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1028","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jse.2023.09.019","article-title":"The comparison of functional bracing of humeral shaft fractures: thermoplastic custom against preprepared commercial braces","volume":"33","author":"Bodansky","year":"2024","journal-title":"J Shoulder Elbow Surg."},{"key":"R15-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"383","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000002810","article-title":"Nonoperative treatment of humeral shaft fractures with immediate functional bracing versus coaptation splinting and delayed functional bracing: a retrospective study","volume":"38","author":"Muhammad","year":"2024","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma."},{"key":"R16-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"291","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-022-01776-6","article-title":"Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for common outcome instruments in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture - analysis of the FISH randomised clinical trial data","volume":"22","author":"Ibounig","year":"2022","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol."},{"key":"R17-20260809","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"5035","DOI":"10.1007\/s00402-023-04836-8","article-title":"Humeral shaft fracture: systematic review of non-operative and operative treatment","volume":"143","author":"Van Bergen","year":"2023","journal-title":"Arch Orthop Trauma Surg."}],"container-title":["Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.1097\/BOT.0000000000003196","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,9]],"date-time":"2026-08-09T18:00:18Z","timestamp":1786298418000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.1097\/BOT.0000000000003196"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]},"references-count":17,"journal-issue":{"issue":"8","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/bot.0000000000003196","relation":{},"ISSN":["0890-5339","1531-2291"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0890-5339","type":"print"},{"value":"1531-2291","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2026-04-08","name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}