ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Comparison of diaphyseal and metaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomies for the treatment of ulnar impaction syndrome.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Modified Ulnar Metaphyseal Wedge Osteotomy in Treating Ulnar Impaction Syndrome: A Comparative Clinical Study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Improved perioperative outcomes and early functional recovery with 3D-printed osteotomy guide plates in ulnar shortening osteotomy: A retrospective study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Effect of different ulnar osteotomies on loading of the distal radioulnar joint: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUlnar shortening osteotomy (USO) is a common surgical procedure for the treatment of ulnar impaction syndrome (UIS). The purpose of this study was to compare the results of metaphyseal and diaphyseal USO.
methodsThis retrospective study compared the clinical outcomes and complications of 32 patients who underwent diaphyseal step-cut USO (n = 10), diaphyseal oblique USO (n = 12), or metaphyseal USO (n = 10).
resultsPatient characteristics, ulnar variance, wrist range of motion, preoperative pain, grip strength, and functional scores (quick disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand and patient-rated wrist evaluation) were comparable. Both operation time (79.5 vs. 138/139 min) and incision length (7.80 vs. 9.67/13.00 cm) were shorter in the metaphyseal USO than in the diaphyseal oblique/step-cut USO. Compared with diaphyseal oblique/step-cut USO, metaphyseal osteotomies were associated with greater improvement in the pain on postoperative day 3 and shorter bone healing time. The requirements for implant removal were the same among the three groups. No complications were observed in any group.
conclusionCompared with diaphyseal USO, metaphyseal USO has advantages for operation time and incision length, early postoperative pain, bone healing in UIS management. The results suggested that metaphyseal USO could be widely applied to the surgical treatment of UIS. However, the long-term outcomes of these techniques still require further evaluation using more large-scale, randomized clinical trials.
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.