ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
External hinged fixation vs. internal joint stabilization for elbow instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and surgical complications.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traumatic elbow instability can be managed with hinged external fixator (HEF) or internal joint stabilizer (IJS). While prior studies report device-related complications with both devices, a comprehensive analysis comparing range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications is limited. This study aims to evaluate these outcomes to guide treatment decisions for complex elbow instability. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in Google Scholar and PubMed from January 1, 2000, to February 20, 2025. Level I-IV studies were included if they reported on postoperative ROM, patient-reported outcome measure, or surgical complications as outcome measures in patients treated with HEF or IJS for elbow instability. Results: Of the 2,041 articles identified, 38 studies met inclusion criteria for quantitative synthesis, including 27 of moderate quality and 11 of high quality based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale classification. Across the 29 retrospective studies, 8 prospective studies, and 1 randomized control trial, 500 patients underwent treatment with HEF, while 263 patients were treated with IJS. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were significantly better in the HEF group compared to IJS (9.8 vs. 23; Conclusion: HEF and IJS showed comparable rates of postoperative ROM, Mayo Elbow Performance Index, visual analog scale, heterotopic ossification, and nerve injury. However, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were 13.2 points lower in the HEF group, exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 10.8 and indicating a clinically meaningful functional advantage of the upper extremity. This difference may be influenced by the less invasive nature of hardware removal with HEF compared to IJS. These findings should be interpreted with caution, given the overall lower level of evidence and heterogeneity across studies. Future prospective investigations with standardized rehabilitation protocols, longer follow-up, and stratification by injury chronicity, limb dominance, and preoperative motion are needed to better define optimal indications for each technique.
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.