ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Value driven outcome (VDO) assessment for the treatment of olecranon fractures.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeControversy remains about the ideal construct for certain olecranon fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness with the value driven outcomes tool between fixation strategies of olecranon fractures.
methodsAll surgically treated isolated proximal ulna fractures (CPT code 24,685) at a level 1 trauma center from 2013 to 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with concomitant radial/ulnar shaft fractures and ligamentous elbow injuries requiring repair were excluded. Demographics, outcomes, initial, downstream (costs secondary to index surgery), and combined cost were compared between plate andintramedullary (IM) screw constructs. Costs included charges to the hospital from facility, implant, supply, pharmacy, imaging, and other service use.
results102 patients with average age of 51 were included: 84 olecranon-specific plates and18 IM screws. Average follow-up was 14.62 ± 16.79 months. There were differences in CCI (p = 0.006). Plate initial and combined cost was significantly greater than an IM screw (1.26x, p = 0.007; 1.49x, p = 0.009, respectively). Using IM screws for reference and controlling for demographics and fracture patterns, treatment with a plate was more expensive at downstream and combined total cost (56.28x, p = 0.04;76.73x, p = 0.03, respectively).
conclusionOlecranon plate fixation is associated with increased downstream and overall cost to the healthcare system. When indicated, other forms of fixation should be considered due to lower costs while still maintaining satisfactory outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39775970What 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.