ArticleJSES international2026
Comparison of complication rates and outcomes for various surgical techniques for the repair of acute distal triceps ruptures.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Distal triceps ruptures are an injury caused by sudden forceful eccentric contraction at the elbow. Various techniques exist in the surgical treatment of distal triceps ruptures. This study sought to compare intraoperative and post-operative complication rates and functional outcomes of bone tunnels, suture anchors, and suture anchor-bone tunnel combination constructs for the surgical management of acute distal triceps ruptures. Methods: This study was a retrospective review of distal triceps ruptures that occurred between the years 2014 and 2024 at a single institution. Chronic ruptures, revision procedures, reconstructions with allograft, direct end-to-end repairs, and atypical injury mechanisms (ie, lacerations) were excluded. Basic demographics and magnetic resonance imaging reports were collected from the electronic health record. Other variables collected were complications from the surgery (ie nerve damage, infection, etc.), pre-operative and post-operative elbow extension strength, surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, and return to the operating room (RTOR). Patients were then grouped into 3 groups based on operative technique (ie, bone tunnels, suture anchors, and suture anchor-bone tunnel combination constructs). Categorical variables were analyzed using chi-square tests and Fisher exact test for sparse data. One-way analysis of variance with Tukey honestly significantly difference post hoc testing was used for continuous variables. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for tear type and tendon retraction length. Results: Forty-seven total patients were included in the analysis, of which, 8 patients (17.0%) were treated with suture anchor constructs, 16 (34.0%) underwent fixation with trans-osseous bone tunnels, and 23 patients (48.9%) underwent combined fixation constructs with suture anchors and bone tunnels. No significant differences were observed for complication rate, RTOR rate, or triceps tendon re-rupture rate (all Discussion: There were no observed differences in re-rupture rate, complication rate, or RTOR between the 3 surgical techniques. However, there was an association with improved elbow extension strength for the combination group but this finding did not retain statistical significance when controlling for tear type and retraction length.
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.