ArticlePloS one2020
Computer tomographic analysis of anatomic characteristics of the ulna - essential parameters for preshaped implants.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The proximal ulna dorsal angle (PUDA): a systematic review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- Evaluation of proximal ulna morphology: a systematic review of varus angulation of the proximal ulna.JSES international · 2026Review
- Computed Tomography-Based Templating of Proximal Ulna Intramedullary Screw Fixation.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAnatomically preshaped implants are needed for exact restoration of the anatomy after fractures of the proximal ulna and ulnar shaft, which enables a good functional outcome. Aim of this computed tomographic analysis was to identify specific characteristics of the ulna. The data serve for the development of a new intramedullary implant for stabilisation of proximal and diaphyseal ulna fractures.
methodsWith a standardized research method 100 CT scans of the ulna were evaluated regarding anatomic parameters like width of the medullary canal, proximal ulna dorsal angulation and varus angulation. Also, correlations of these parameters were analyzed statistically.
resultsThe mean proximal ulna dorsal angulation (PUDA) was 6.4° (SD 2.8°), while the mean varus angulation of the proximal ulna was 12.4° (SD 3.3°). The length of the ulna bone was 253.6 mm (SD 19.9 mm) on average. The average minimum diameter of the medullary canal was 4.2 mm (SD 1.1 mm) located at 141.3 mm (SD 19.7 mm) from the olecranon tip. There is a positive correlation between age and minimum diameter in our patient cohort (p< 0.001).
conclusionOur study described the anatomy of the proximal ulna and the ulna shaft with a reproducible research method in a representative patient cohort. The knowledge of the evaluated anatomic parameters can lead to an improvement of any implant design for the fixation of proximal and diaphyseal ulna fractures.
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.