ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2024
Variability of rehabilitation protocols for ulnar collateral ligament repair with suture tape augmentation.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) is frequently injured in overhead throwing athletes, leading to elbow instability, pain and decreased performance, and requiring surgical intervention. Augmenting with suture tape provides a novel approach to UCL repair, offering stability while preserving native anatomy, proprioception, and minimizing bone loss, with the added benefit of an expected faster rehabilitation and return to sport (RTS) compared to traditional UCL reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to assess the variability of the current publicly available rehabilitation protocols for elbow UCL repair with suture tape augmentation. Methods: A systematic review of Google and PubMed was performed to find rehabilitation protocols for UCL repair with suture tape augmentation. Two hundred nine orthopedic surgery residency programs were identified using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access. The programs were searched on Google, a broad nonspecific Google search, and a systematic literature search of journal databases for UCL repair with suture tape augmentation rehabilitation protocols was conducted. Results: Thirteen rehabilitation protocols met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Of these, 12 protocols outlined the use of an articulating brace at varying range of motion settings for the first 4-6 weeks following surgery. Return to throwing was included in all 13 protocols and began between 10 and 12 weeks following surgery. RTS was included in 11 protocols and expected athletes competing as early as 16 weeks with a mean recommended RTS at 21.5 weeks. Conclusion: Rehabilitation protocols for UCL repair with suture tape augmentation were often structured around a 5-phase program with RTS approaching 20 weeks. They utilized immobilization and range of motion restriction as well as strengthening and gradual RTS procedures. Overall, the included protocols had mild variability with initiation of throwing and RTS 12 to 24 weeks faster than traditional UCL reconstruction.
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.