ArticleJSES international2025
Surgical outcomes after reoperation of intra-articular proximal ulna fractures.
Article in JSES international, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Literature on outcomes after reoperation for intra-articular proximal ulna fractures is lacking, even though reoperation rates for these fractures are reportedly one of the highest of any anatomic site, ranging from 22%-89%. This study aims to evaluate range of motion (ROM) and complication rates after reoperation for these fractures. Methods: In this retrospective single institution cohort study, we identified 134 patients with intra-articular, comminuted fractures of the proximal ulna initially treated with open reduction internal fixation between January 2015 and March 2022. Of this cohort, 34 of the 134 patients (25%) underwent reoperation. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to assess differences between preoperative and postoperative ROM. Results: Symptomatic hardware was the most common indication for reoperation (28/34 [82%]), followed by ulnar neuropathy (4/34 [12%]). ROM remained similar before and after reoperation for patients who underwent reoperation for indications other than stiffness. Patients that were reoperated for stiffness showed a 9° ( Conclusion: In our study cohort, 25% of patients underwent reoperation-most often due to symptomatic hardware. While ROM is typically preserved after reoperation and improved when the indication for reoperation is elbow stiffness, a significant proportion of patients (35%) experience subsequent complications. Counseling patients about reoperation outcomes is essential to manage patient expectations and can help them make informed decisions. This approach supports informed decision-making and optimizes patient care.
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.