ArticleJSES international2025
A single-surgeon experience with the internal joint stabilizer of the elbow across 56 cases.
Article in JSES international, 2025. 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.
- Adjusted Internal Joint Stabilizer Implants as a Supplementary Management of Chronic Elbow Injury: A Preliminary Case Series.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recurrent instability continues to plague outcomes of elbow trauma. Adjuvant stabilization-whether internal or external-is intended to acutely stabilize the elbow and off-load the repair construct(s) during early mobilization. Our objective was to report clinical outcomes for a single-surgeon consecutive series using the internal joint stabilizer (IJS) of the elbow. Furthermore, we intend to describe technical points that have been gleaned from the experience which may provide guidance. Methods: A retrospective follow-up was performed for cases of elbow instability treated with the IJS (Skeletal Dynamics, Miami, Florida, USA) from 2016-2023 with a minimum requirement of 6 months of follow-up. Clinical outcomes and complications including recurrent instability were compiled. Results: Of 87 potential cases, 56 met the inclusion criteria. Simple dislocations (30%) and terrible triad injury (21%) were the most common injury patterns. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 81 and the mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 22.5. Recurrent instability occurred in 5.3% of cases. The mean time to removal was 21.1 weeks. Discussion: Our utilization of the IJS of the elbow has evolved from simple dislocations to complex instability cases. Results demonstrated satisfactory clinical outcomes with low rates of recurrent instability and revision. The ability for early mobilization was a critical determinant for using an IJS in these cases. This advantage carried particular importance in cases that presented subacutely following an extended course of immobilization. Our protocol for removal timing is applied on a case-by-case basis and involves identification of sufficient rehabilitation and clinical stability.
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.