Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35482109›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023

Surgical arthrolysis of the stiff elbow: a systematic review.

Fabian Lanzerath, Kilian Wegmann, Michael Hackl, Stephan Uschok, Nadine Ott, Lars P Müller, Tim Leschinger

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Fabian LanzerathDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. fabian.lanzerath1@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4780-6875
Kilian WegmannDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Michael HacklDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Stephan UschokDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Nadine OttDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Lars P MüllerDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Tim LeschingerDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionStiffness after elbow injuries can severely limit daily life. If adequate conservative treatment does not result in satisfactory improvement of elbow function, surgical intervention should be considered. Whether an open or arthroscopic procedure is preferable is still a topic of debate and a systematic review of functional outcomes is lacking. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe systematically reviewed the available literature searching electronic databases, MEDLINE using the PubMed interface and EMBASE, for studies published between 2013 and 2021. Primary objective was to compare open and arthroscopic arthrolysis' functional outcomes, respectively, especially ROM and MEPS, as well as the accompanied complications. The PRISMA guidelines were applied.

results27 studies comprising 1666 patients were included. 1059 patients (63.6%) were treated with open arthrolysis, and 607 patients (36.4%) were treated with arthroscopic arthrolysis. The results presented indicate satisfactory outcomes in open and arthroscopic arthrolysis with regard to functional outcome parameters. Treatment success, defined as excellent or good results according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, among the patients treated with an open procedure was 88.8%; 6.3% required revision whereas 18.1% had complications without the need for revision surgery. Within the cohort of arthroscopically treated patients, treatment success was 91.8%. Revisions and complications without further surgical intervention were significantly less frequent than in the open cohort, at 1.6% and 9.1%, respectively.

conclusionsBoth open and arthroscopic arthrolysis provide good to excellent functional outcomes. Since the number of complications and revision increases with the invasiveness of the treatment, an arthroscopic procedure might be favored if feasible by indication. The role of forearm rotation and the use of a hinged external fixator remains of interest. STUDY

designLevel IV; Systematic review.

Indexed as

Elbow JointJoint DiseasesOrthopedic ProceduresElbowHumansRange of Motion, ArticularRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeArthrolysisArthroscopicElbowOpenOutcomeStiffnessSurgical treatmentSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35482109
PMCPMC10110632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.