SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2025
Capitellum fractures: should the collateral ligament be repaired primarily?
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is controversial whether the collateral ligaments should be repaired primarily for capitellum fractures with ligamentous injury. This research was conducted to summarize the current evidence for this issue. Methods: Databases, including Medline, Cochrane library and EMBASE, were searched from their establishment to December 31, 2024 for clinical articles on capitellum fractures. The reference lists of the relevant studies were also checked successively. The general information including first author, publication time, location, the number of cases, treatment for the capitellum fractures with collateral ligament injury, were included. Outcomes, including the pronation and supination of the elbow, active range of motion, Mayo elbow performance score, elbow instability and complications, were extracted. Results: Fifteen studies and 220 patients were identified and analyzed. The average follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 17 years. The fractures were managed by open reduction and internal fixation. Medial collateral ligaments (MCL) injury was reported in 4 of the 15 included reports. Among the 97 patients, 17 (17.5%) patients suffered capitellum fracture with MCL injury. For the treatment of MCL injury, the literature reports were inconsistent. Nine studies with 159 patients reported the treatment for the lateral collateral ligaments (LCL) injury. Fifty-six cases were complicated with LCL injury, of which 41 cases were primary injury and 15 LCL were released to enhance exposure. All LCL injuries were repaired primarily. Conclusion: For capitellum fractures with ligament injuries, primary repair of LCL should be performed when combined by LCL injury or LUCL release is performed during surgery. The MCL may require primary reconstruction or treatment in a hinged brace.
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.