ArticleJSES international2024
A clinical review of elbow ligament repairs and reconstructions in the acute and chronic settings.
Article in JSES international, 2024. 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.
- The Stiff Elbow Revisited: How Much Motion Can Surgery Really Restore?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
Background: The ligamentous and osseous structures of the elbow joint are the major contributors to its inherent stability and damage to any of these structures can result in elbow instability. The aim of this study is to present objective and subjective outcomes following ligament repairs and/or reconstructions for acute elbow instability and chronic elbow instability. Methods: This study included patients who underwent an elbow ligament repair and/or reconstruction for acute or chronic elbow instability. We performed a comprehensive retrospective data analysis of the patient's files, followed by a clinical examination and X-ray of these patients. Results: We identified 12 acute stabilizations and 22 stabilizations for chronic instability. Patients who underwent stabilization for chronic instability had statistically significant improvements in their preoperative flexion and extension; 14.8 ± 6.4° and 5.9 ± 2.5°. Patients with chronic instability achieved better extension-flexion and pronation-supination arcs compared with their acute instability counterparts and this reached statistical significance. When the elbow pain and function scores were compared, we found stabilizations in the acute setting had better outcomes. There were two cases of postoperative instability, one in the acute instability group and one in the chronic instability group. Conclusion: This study provides evidence for elbow ligament repairs and reconstructions in both acute and chronic settings. It is an effective way of stabilizing the elbow joint in chronic instability patients, and results in an improvement in their overall range of motion. These patients achieved a greater range of motions compared with their acute instability counterparts.
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.