ArticleActa orthopaedica2025
Ulnar shortening osteotomy for ulna impaction syndrome with positive ulnar variance: retrospective outcome analysis.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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.
- [Research status and clinical progress of ulnar shortening osteotomy for ulnar impaction syndrome].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Improved perioperative outcomes and early functional recovery with 3D-printed osteotomy guide plates in ulnar shortening osteotomy: A retrospective study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeWe primarily aimed to report the results of ulnar shortening osteotomy (USO) in cases of ulna impaction syndrome (UIS), and secondarily to assess the influence of etiology, radiographic parameters, and comorbidities on the outcome.
methodsPatients with USO performed for UIS between 2014 and 2022 at our department were included in the study. Demographic, surgical, and postoperative data, including complications and revisions, were recorded retrospectively. An additional study-specific follow-up was performed in all available cases, including subjective outcome measures as Patient Related Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) and Quick Disability of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (Quick-DASH) scores, and standardized 90-90° wrist radiographs.
results47 patients were treated with USO at mean age 45.8 years (standard deviation [SD] 16.7); 28 were female; median follow-up was 37 months (interquartile range [IQR] 22-57). Isolated USO was performed in 27 cases; the rest received a combination of procedures, e.g., wrist arthroscopy. USO-specific devices were used in all cases. Reoperations were performed in 12 cases, with implant removal in 11. Postoperative complications such as chronic regional pain syndrome or pseudoarthrosis were detected in 9 patients. 29 patients were additionally examined at median 36 months (IQR 22-49) follow-up. A median PRWE score of 7 (IQR 0-19) and a median Quick-DASH score of 4.5 (IQR 0-15.9) were reported. The subjective improvement was rated as very high by 24 patients. Radiographs showed a mean ulnar shortening of 2.9 mm (SD 1.1) and bone consolidation was achieved in all osteotomies at last follow-up. Relevant comorbidities weakly correlated with worse outcome scores (ρ = 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.05 to 0.74 for PRWE and ρ = 0.40, CI -0.06 to 0.73 for Quick-DASH). No statistically significant difference could be detected in any other variables, including UIS etiology.
conclusionWe found that USO had good subjective results measure scores, but with relatively high complication and revision rates, including implant removal.
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.