ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2025
A systematic review of surgical outcomes of ulnar collateral ligament rupture in the elbow treated with various techniques.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are Suture Spanning Repair Techniques Replacing Traditional Tommy John Surgery? Prevalence and Complication Rates Following Ulnar Collateral Ligament Repair or Reconstruction.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Incidence of Elbow Medial Ulnar Collateral Ligament Repair and Reconstruction: A US Population Database Study 2016 to 2022.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When comparing different techniques, there is limited evidence on return-to-play rates and complication rates following ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) surgery. This systematic review aims to assess the outcomes of various UCL surgery techniques. A systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE up to May 2024 was performed. Outcome measures included return-to-play rates and postoperative complication rates from relevant articles. Data was analyzed using a chi-square analysis to determine statistical significance. Internal bracing repair demonstrated a return-to-play rate of 93.2 % at the same or higher level of competition, outperforming the rates of 80.5 % for the modified Jobe technique and 82.3 % for docking reconstruction. The docking technique exhibited a minor postoperative complication rate of 2.35 %, significantly lower than the rates of 8.59 % and 8.08 % for modified Jobe and internal bracing techniques, respectively. The modified Jobe technique had a major postoperative complication rate of 1.16 %, while internal bracing had a rate of 3.01 %. The use of internal bracing for anchor repairs demonstrated a statistically significant higher return-to-play rate at the same or elevated levels of competition compared to the reconstruction techniques analyzed. Notably, the docking technique exhibited a significantly lower rate of minor postoperative complications when contrasted with both the modified Jobe and internal bracing methods. Furthermore, the modified Jobe technique was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of major postoperative complications compared to the internal bracing approach.
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.