ReviewJSES international2023
Acute elbow dislocation: a critical appraisal of the literature.
Review in JSES international, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation of sonographic posterolateral rotatory stress test and posterolateral rotatory instability of the elbow.JSES international · 2026Article
- Traumatic elbow luxation in cats: A cadaveric study on the role of collateral and olecranon ligaments in joint stability.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2026Article
- Soft Tissue Injury and Immobilization Are Both Required for Persistent Elbow Contracture in a Rat Model.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025Article
- Biomechanical investigation of elbow dislocation: comparative analysis usingFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Acute Dislocation of the Elbow: An All-Arthroscopic Repair of the Lateral Ligament Complex.Arthroscopy techniques · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to perform a narrative review of acute elbow dislocation (AED). There are certain aspects of the management of AED that are controversial, including type and length of immobilization, indications for surgery, type of surgery, and new evidence available. Material and methods: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Embase databases for studies regarding AED. Preference was given to studies according to their level of evidence. Studies regarding the outcome of conservative and surgical treatment, including patient-reported outcomes, complications, and conversion to stabilization or revision surgery were included. Results: We found only 1 level I study and 3 level II randomized clinical trials. The rest consisted of level III-V evidence. Conservative care continues to be the standard of care for stable AEDs. Shorter immobilization periods are favored when possible. A consensus definition of an unstable elbow still needs to be improved. Unstable simple elbow dislocation may benefit from surgical intervention with different techniques showing similar outcomes. Advances in surgical procedures and suture designs, including tapes, and ligament augmentation, need to prove their role in managing acute elbow instability. Conclusion: There is a need for higher quality studies after the reduction of an AED, including discerning the outcome of specific patterns of injury and particular groups of patients like high-level athletes or people with preoperative laxity. Comparison between different surgical techniques is warranted, including arthroscopic techniques and types of ligament augmentation to promote early motion and reduce postoperative stiffness.
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.