ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2022
Biomechanical Analysis of Three Different Reconstruction Techniques for Scapholunate Instability: A Cadaveric Study.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stabilization of the scapholunate interval with interference fit screws: How to do it safely.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Review
- A Biomechanical Comparison of Three Current Scapholunate Reconstruction Methods.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- The effects of medial soft tissue release for varus deformity during medial open wedge supramalleolar osteotomy: a cadaveric study.Biomedical engineering letters · 2024Article
- Biomechanical Comparisons of Different Reconstructive Techniques for Scapholunate Dissociation: A Cadaveric Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Current Concepts in Scapholunate Instability Without Arthritic Changes.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2023Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the biomechanical strength of 360° scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL) reconstruction only using an artificial material (AM), double dorsal limb (DDL) SLIL reconstruction only using AM, and the modified Brunelli technique (MBT) with ligament. Methods: Eight cadaver wrists were used for this study. The SL interval, SL angle, and radiolunate (RL) angle were recorded with MicroScribe. The SL distance was measured after dividing the volar and dorsal aspects. We utilized four different wrist postures (neutral, flexion, extension, and clenched fist) to compare five conditions: intact wrist, SLIL resection, 360° SLIL reconstruction using AM, DDL SLIL reconstruction using AM, and MBT SLIL reconstruction with ligament. Results: The dorsal SL distance in the SLIL resection was widened in all wrist positions. The dorsal SL distance was restored with all three techniques and in all wrist positions. The volar SL distance in the wrist extension position was widened in the SLIL resection condition. The volar SL distance was restored in the extension position after 360° SLIL reconstruction using AM condition. There were no statistically significant differences in SL and RL angles among the conditions. Conclusions: All three reconstruction techniques could restore the dorsal SL distance. However, only the 360° SLIL reconstruction using AM restored the volar SL distance in the wrist extension position. DDL SLIL reconstruction using AM tended to overcorrect, whereas 360° SLIL reconstruction using AM effectively stopped volar SL interval widening.
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.