ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Outcomes after contact and distance elbow arthrodesis: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElbow arthrodesis (EA) is a rare salvage procedure for non-reconstructible elbow conditions and failed total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 20 adults treated with EA between 2010 and 2024, comparing contact arthrodesis (n = 12) with distance/defect arthrodesis after induced membrane technique (IMT) reconstruction (n = 8). Indications were infection in nine patients, trauma in three patients, osteoarthritis in three patients, non-union in three patients, and inflammatory arthritis in two patients. Outcomes included grip strength, wrist range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) Oxford Elbow Score (OES), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), abbreviated Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), complications, and return to work.
resultsPrimary radiographic fusion was observed in 18 of 20 patients; two patients required revision surgery for nonunion, here secondary fusion was achieved with distance arthrodesis. The mean fixation angle was 102 ± 11°. At a mean follow-up of 4 ± 4 years, no statistically significant differences in PROMS or objective measures were detected between contact and distance arthrodesis. Relative grip strength on the operated side was 0.74 of the contralateral side, and wrist ROM was reduced. In dominant-hand injuries, fixation angle correlated with relative wrist radial-ulnar deviation ROM (r = 0.668, p = 0.009). Peri-implant fractures of the proximal ulna occurred in seven patients and intraoperative bleeding in four. Among patients of working age, 12 of 15 returned to work.
conclusionsNo statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes were detected between defect/distance and contact arthrodesis; however, equivalence cannot be concluded from this underpowered exploratory cohort. Elbow arthrodesis remains a salvage procedure with substantial complication risk. Individualized fusion angle selection, local bone stock, infection status, and patient-specific occupational demands should be considered carefully during preoperative counseling and surgical planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative cohort study.
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.