ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Mechanical Evaluation of Suture Docking Method Versus Novel Tensegrity Suture Screw in Treating Varus Posterolateral Surrogate and Cadaveric Elbow Instability.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2026. 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
Abstract
introductionElbow instability often arises from collateral ligament (LUCL) complex failure, causing varus and posterolateral rotatory subluxations. Conventional docking repair requires technical expertise balancing slack and tension. Existing suture anchors lack adjustable tensioning and rely on bone tunnel length for mechanical performance. A novel tensegrity-based suture anchor system was developed to enhance implant-bone fixation and optimize suture tensioning for early stability. METHODOLOGY: Static three-point bending tests were conducted using Sawbones (n = 20) and paired cadaveric elbows (n = 14) with either conventional suture docking (CON) or elbow tensegrity screw (TEN). Force-displacement relationships were plotted. Stiffness, maximum force, and displacement at peak force were measured and compared using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests in GraphPad Prism 10.5.0.
resultsIn foam elbows, TEN demonstrated significantly higher stiffness (3.46 ± 1.44 N/mm) than CON (1.44 ± 1.17 N/mm, p < 0.01). Maximum forces were 132.60 ± 28.82 N for TEN versus 75.02 ± 20.28 N for CON (p < 0.01), while displacement at peak force was slightly lower in TEN (35.54 ± 5.80 mm) versus CON (39.03 ± 9.05 mm, p = 0.22). In cadaveric elbows, TEN also had greater stiffness (12.79 ± 9.73 N/mm) versus CON (3.53 ± 2.43 N/mm, p < 0.05). Maximum forces were significantly greater for TEN (199.93 ± 35.89 N) compared to CON (140.11 ± 37.23 N, p < 0.05), while displacements at peak force were lower in TEN (22.31 ± 10.06 mm) than CON (38.68 ± 8.64 mm, p < 0.05). All CON samples failed from irreversible yielding and suture stretching, whereas most TEN samples failed due to suture rupture, suggesting superior bone-implant and suture-implant interface resistance.
conclusionTEN devices significantly improved mechanical strength and pretensioning over conventional docking, enhancing early stability and reducing yield failure risk.
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.