Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40057913›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025

Surgical revision after previous failed lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) reconstruction and persisting posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) of the Elbow: a retrospective multicentric analysis.

Sebastian Lappen, Sebastian Siebenlist, Christian Schoch, Hans-Jörg Bülow, Boris Hollinger, Klaus Burkhart J, Stephanie Geyer

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sebastian LappenUniversity of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Sebastian SiebenlistRechts Der Isar Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Christian SchochSt. Vinzenz Kliniken Pfronten Im Allgäu, Pfronten, Germany.
Hans-Jörg BülowOrthopedic Hospital Markgroeningen, Markgroeningen, Germany.
Boris HollingerOrthopedic Hospital Markgroeningen, Markgroeningen, Germany.
Klaus Burkhart JDiakonie-Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Stephanie GeyerSt. Vinzenz Kliniken Pfronten Im Allgäu, Pfronten, Germany. stephanie.geyer@vinzenz-klinik.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to identify causes for recurrent PLRI, compare surgical treatment options, and analyze functional outcomes following revision LUCL reconstruction.

methodsA retrospective multicentric case analysis was conducted, including patients who underwent revision LUCL surgery due to recurrent PLRI. Demographic data, surgical techniques (for primary and revision LUCL reconstruction) and postoperative rehabilitation protocols were analyzed, and causes of failure documented. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaires.

resultsA total of 37 patients with a mean age of 44.3 years (± 12.3) and a median follow-up of 40.9 months (interquartile range, 20.5-77.0) with revision LUCL surgery were included. Recurrent instability was mainly attributed to graft insufficiency or loosening (59.5%) and rupture of the humeral graft (37.8%). Failure of humeral fixation occurred in 48.7% of cases, often due to loosening or widening of the drill hole. While triceps tendon autografts were most commonly used for primary LUCL reconstruction (89.2%), triceps and hamstring tendon autografts were used in revision procedures (35.1% and 32.4%, respectively). Fixation of the humerus was most commonly performed with tenodesis screws (83.8% in primary procedures and 73.0% in revision procedures), and fixation of the ulnaris was generally performed with biceps buttons in both primary procedures (75.7%) and revision procedures (51.4%). Out of 37 patients, eight complications (21.6%) were reported following revision surgery, including three cases of recurrent instability (8.1%). The median QuickDASH score was 42.5 (IQR, 25.4-80.2), and the median PREE score was 13.0 (IQR, 1.0-41.4).

conclusionRevision LUCL reconstructions remain challenging. The most common causes of failure are graft insufficiency or loosening, and humeral graft rupture, resulting in recurrent PLRI. Additionally, revision LUCL reconstruction is associated with moderate to poor postoperative outcome scores and a relatively high complication rate.

Indexed as

Elbow JointJoint InstabilityReoperationUlnar Collateral Ligament ReconstructionAdultFemaleHumansHumerusMaleMiddle AgedRange of Motion, ArticularRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesTendonsTreatment FailureElbow instabilityFunctional outcomesLateral ulnar collateral ligamentPosterolateral rotatory instabilityRevision surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.