Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41607475›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026

Elbow Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction and Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Biomechanical Studies.

Austin M Looney, Adeeb Jacob Hanna, Carlo Coladonato, John Hayden Sonnier, Blake M Bodendorfer, Christopher G Anderson, Neil Sarna, Kevin B Freedman, Michael G Ciccotti, Michael C Ciccotti and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Austin M LooneyRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2073-375X
Adeeb Jacob HannaRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1877-5915
Carlo ColadonatoRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.
John Hayden SonnierRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6748-261X
Blake M BodendorferRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.
Christopher G AndersonRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.
Neil SarnaRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kevin B FreedmanRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michael G CiccottiRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michael C CiccottiRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.
Brandon J EricksonRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3238-7839
Steven B CohenRothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

biomechanicstechniquesulnar collateral ligament reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID41607475
PMCPMC12835519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.