ArticleJSES international2026
Hawkins Award 2025: clinical implications of radiological findings associated with radial head replacement. A long-term follow-up study.
Article in JSES international, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radial head replacement (RHR) is indicated in comminuted fractures and those associated with elbow instability. Despite satisfactory clinical outcomes, some patients present with concerning radiographic findings. Our aim was to compare the long-term radiological results of 2 RHR designs and to correlate them with clinical findings. Methods: A prospective observational cohort study including 134 patients who received an RHR (84 spacer designs and 50 anatomic models) for acute elbow instability was conducted. Patients were prospectively followed for a mean of 88 months (range, 24-204). Radiological analysis included technical implantation errors (poor position and inappropriate choice of implant size), radiolucent lines, stress shielding, heterotopic ossifications or degenerative changes. These findings were correlated to clinical outcomes according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score; Oxford Elbow Score; and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. Results: Radiographically, technical errors, including overstuffing, malrotation, and inadequate cortical contact, were more prevalent in the anatomic group (17 anatomic RHR cases vs. 7 patients in the spacer group, Conclusion: Anatomic RHR has a risk of radiographic technical mistakes that correlate to poorer outcomes. Compared to the spacer, they also have a higher rate of radiographic changes leading to revision surgery, due to overstuffing and loosening.
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.