SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Which is the optimal surgical strategy for the terrible triad of the elbow?
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare and rank the clinical outcomes of commonly used surgical strategies for the terrible triad of the elbow (TTE) using a network meta-analysis (NMA).
methodsMajor databases were searched from inception to September 2025 for comparative studies evaluating different surgical approaches for TTE. Primary outcomes were the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) excellent-good rate and complication incidence. Secondary outcomes included elbow flexion-extension range of motion (ROM), forearm rotation ROM, and fracture healing time. A frequentist NMA framework was applied to estimate comparative effects and rank strategies.
resultsFourteen studies involving 866 patients were included. The Lateral + Anteromedial (L + AM) approach demonstrated a higher probability of achieving favorable MEPS outcomes and lower complication rates. The Anterolateral (AL) and Anteromedial (AM) approaches ranked more favorably in restoring flexion-extension and forearm rotation ROM. No significant differences in fracture healing time were observed across strategies. Overall heterogeneity and inconsistency were low.
conclusionThe L + AM approach appears to offer a favorable balance between functional outcomes and complication risk, whereas AL and AM approaches may provide advantages in postoperative mobility. As all included studies were retrospective and heterogeneous in design, these findings should be interpreted with caution. High-quality prospective studies are required to validate these results.
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.