ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Comparative study of open elbow arthrolysis with and without hinge external fixation for the treatment of post-traumatic elbow stiffness.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive analysis of mRNA-microRNA-lncRNA expression profiles in post-traumatic elbow heterotopic ossification using RNA sequencing and experimental validation.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Open elbow arthrolysis with hinged external fixation for postburn elbow stiffness: a case series with an averaged 4-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Elbow Varus posteromedial rotatory instability: Reflections from a multidimensional perspective.Science progressReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aimed to compare the functional outcomes of hinged external fixators and non-external fixation in open elbow arthrolysis (OEA) for post-traumatic elbow stiffness (PTES) and to evaluate their applicability and limitations in patients with posttraumatic elbow stiffness.
methodsThe clinical data of patients with PTES treated with OEA at our hospital between March 2015 and June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The assessed variables were the operation time, intraoperative blood loss volume, duration of hospitalization, and treatment costs. The elbow range of motion (ROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (Q-DASH) score, Oxford Elbow score (OES), Broberg and Morrey score (BMS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and complications such as pin tract infection and heterotopic ossification were compared between patients with and without hinge external fixation. We also compared the baseline characteristics and functional outcomes of patients with and without hinge external fixation.
resultsA total of 156 patients (48 patients with hinged external fixators and 108 patients without external fixators) diagnosed with PTES were included in this study. The mean follow-up was 15.8 ± 3.6 months. Compared with patients without external fixators, those with external fixators showed significantly greater improvements in elbow flexion and extension ROM (59.6° ± 26.1° vs. 46.2° ± 26.2°, p = 0.004) but had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization (p < 0.001), significantly longer operation time (p < 0.001), significantly higher treatment costs (p < 0.001), and significantly greater intraoperative blood loss volume (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of improvement in elbow rotation ROM, MEPS score, VAS score for pain, OES score, Q-DASH score, BMS score, or incidence of complications.
conclusionThe use of a hinged external fixator in open arthrolysis for posttraumatic elbow stiffness may result in short-term improvements in flexion-extension range of motion but is accompanied by increased blood loss, longer operative time, extended hospitalization, and higher costs. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.