ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
Elbow Kinematics and Function Following Treatment with Open Arthrolysis and Hinged External Fixator.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Special Issue.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOpen arthrolysis (OA) combined with hinged external fixator (HEF) is a promising surgical option for patients with elbow stiffness. This study aimed to investigate elbow kinematics and function following a combined treatment with OA and HEF in elbow stiffness cases.
methodsPatients treated with OA with or without HEF due to elbow stiffness were recruited between August 2017 and July 2019. Elbow flexion-extension motion and function (Mayo elbow performance scores, MEPS) were recorded and compared between patients with and without HEF during a 1-year follow-up period. Additionally, those with HEF were assessed by dual fluoroscopy at week 6 postoperatively. Flexion-extension and varus-valgus motions, as well as ligament insertion distances of the anterior medial collateral ligament (AMCL) and lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL), were compared between the surgical and intact sides.
resultsThis study included 42 patients, of which 12 with HEF demonstrated a similar flexion-extension angle and range of motion (ROM) and MEPS as the other patients. In patients with HEF, the surgical elbows showed limitations in flexion-extension (maximal flexion, 120.5° ± 5.3° vs 140.4° ± 6.8°; maximal extension, 13.1° ± 6.0° vs 6.4° ± 3.0°; ROM, 107.4° ± 9.9° vs 134.0° ± 6.8°; all Ps < 0.01) compared with the contralateral sides. During elbow flexion, a gradual valgus-to-varus transition of the ulna, increase in the AMCL insertion distance, and steady change in the LUCL insertion distance were observed, with no significant differences between the bilateral sides.
conclusionsPatients treated with OA and HEF demonstrated similar elbow flexion-extension motion and function to those treated with OA alone. Although the use of HEF could not restore an intact flexion-extension ROM and might result in some minor but not significant changes in kinematics, it contributed to clinical outcomes comparable to that of the treatment with OA alone.
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.