ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Elbow Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction and Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Biomechanical Studies.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Technical variations in elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR) include graft source, graft/tunnel configuration, and humeral and ulnar fixation. While the biomechanical performance of various constructs has been reported, these studies have small sample sizes and compare at most a few technical variations. Purpose: To quantitatively synthesize the results of biomechanical investigations of UCLR and repair. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses); included articles were published between 1998 and 2020. Biomechanical metrics were utilized to compute effect sizes (standardized mean difference [SMD]) for quantitative analysis when 2 studies reported the same metric for the same comparison. After our initial search, 1293 studies were identified. Summary effects were estimated in random-effects models, and mixed-effects models were constructed to evaluate the fixed effects of technical variations through meta-regression. Results: A total of 24 eligible studies were included, of which 19 were included in the quantitative analysis. Compared with the intact ligament, UCLR had significantly lower ultimate strength (SMD, -1.411; Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that, at time zero, UCLR has inferior biomechanical properties compared with the native intact ligament. Biomechanical performance of UCLR was either inferior to the intact UCL (ultimate strength, stiffness [N/mm], and valgus opening at 70° flexion) or not significantly different from it (stiffness [N⋅m/deg], valgus opening at 30° and 90° of flexion, and gapping at failure). There is no difference in biomechanical outcome measurements between docking and Jobe reconstructions, or between UCL repair and reconstruction.
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.