ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2022
Capitellum and trochlea fractures. A systematic review of the literature.
Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgical outcomes of coronal shear fractures of the capitellum and trochlea: a retrospective study of Dubberley classification-guided treatment.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the outcome of capitellum and trochlea fractures through a systematic review of the contemporary literature. The effect on the outcome, of the posterolateral column comminution and the surgical approach used for fixation, was also evaluated. Methods: PUBMED, SCOPUS and MENDELEY databases were searched for capitellum and trochlea fractures and a systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The minimum one year clinical outcome and the flexion extension arc of these fractures, as well as the risk of developing degenerative arthritis were evaluated. The studies included to the meta - analysis were assessed based on the Newcastle Ottawa score. A fixed effect model was performed to compare the outcome and range of motion among Dubberley type A and type B fractures as well as between the extended lateral approach and the posterior transolecranon approach which were performed for Dubberley type B fractures. Furthermore the relative risk of degenerative arthritis (DA) among type A and type B fractures was also estimated. Chi square test was used to test heterogenity among studies. Results: Ten nonrandomized case series were eligible to our inclusion criteria, including 76 patients in total. The fixed overall Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and the Range of Motion (ROM) of the Dubberley type A fractures was 86 (95% C.I.: 85,1-86,9) and 124 0 (95% C.I.: 122 0-124 0) respectively. The fixed overall MEPS and ROM of the Dubberley type B fractures was 84 (95%C.I.: 79,9-88,1) and 122 0 (95% C.I.: 120 0-123 0) respectively. Significant heterogenity was found though between studies regarding MEPS of type B fractures. The fixed overall MEPS and ROM for fractures treated with an extended lateral approach was 89,4 (95% C.I.: 85,36-93,44) and 123 0 (120 0-126 0) respectively. The fixed overall MEPS and ROM for fractures treated with a posterior transolecranon approach was 68,75 (95% C.I.: 67,89-69,6) and 122 0 (114 0-130 0) respectively. The degenerative arthritis relative risk (RR) of type B compared to type A fractures was 3,91 (95% C.I.: 0,84-18,13). Conclusion: There is no statistically significant difference among type A and type B fractures, in terms of outcome and ROM. The posterior transolecranon approach leads to a lower MEPS as opposed to the extended lateral approach. High quality studies comparing directly the outcome of type A and type B fractures are required, in order for safe conclusions to be extracted.
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.