ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
A retrospective comparison of open and arthroscopic surgery for elbow joint stiffness; a single centre pragmatic study over 15 years.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 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.
- Post-traumatic elbow stiffness in adolescents: open vs. arthroscopic management and comparison with adults.Orthopedic reviews · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is ample evidence but conflicting reports to justify decision making for open versus arthroscopic elbow debridement and release for stiffness and pain once non-surgical measures have failed. The aim of this retrospective study is to report the clinical and functional outcomes of arthroscopic and open surgery for patients presenting with elbow pain, stiffness and loss of function. Methods: A consecutive series of patients who had completed a minimum of 6 months of non-surgical treatment of elbow stiffness were identified over a 15-year period between July 2008 and January 2023 from a single centre. Results: 96 patients were treated with arthroscopic surgery with 75 open surgery. Mean age was 51 years. Pre-operative pathology included osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthropathy and post-traumatic stiffness. Post-traumatic stiffness was more commonly treated with open surgery. The flexion-extension arc, pronosupination arc, pain score, Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) and satisfaction scores improved in all patients (p < 0.05). The arthroscopic group had a lower pain score (p < 0.05), a higher satisfaction score (p < 0.05), higher MEPS (p < 0.05), greater flexion-extension arc (P < 0.01), greater pronosupination arc (P < 0.01) and fewer patients had ongoing symptoms of pain and stiffness which limited function (P < 0.05) with fewer repoerations (p > 0.05) than the open group. Conclusions: Both arthroscopic and open surgical approaches for elbow stiffness improved elbow range of movement and function. Arthroscopic treatment was better than open surgery and may represent a more favorable approach. Level of evidence: Level 4 (case series).
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.