MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118660823 · doi:10.1177/0363546509340658

Defining Safe Rehabilitation for Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction of the Elbow

2009· article· en· W2118660823 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Geoffrey A. Bernas, Ramon A. Ruberte Thiele, Karen A. Kinnaman, Richard E. Hughes, Bruce S. Miller, James E. Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsElbowCollateralLigamentMedicineRehabilitationUlnar neuropathyOrthodonticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomySurgeryUlnar nervePhysical therapyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction of the elbow using a variety of techniques has been successful in enabling overhead athletes with ulnar collateral ligament insufficiency to return to competition. Most current postoperative rehabilitation programs begin with a period of motion restriction, including limiting elbow extension, that is followed by a transition from elbow strengthening to an interval throwing program, to competition. Motion restrictions early in the postoperative period may increase the risk for contractures. There is limited information to support current motion restrictions. PURPOSE: (1) To determine strain on the reconstructed ulnar collateral ligament during a rehabilitation protocol that includes passive range of motion, isometric muscle contraction, and varus and valgus torques. (2) To develop guidelines for a safe initial rehabilitation protocol. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eight cadaveric elbows underwent ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction with the docking technique using a gracilis tendon graft. Differential variable reluctance transducers on the anterior and posterior bands of the reconstructed anterior bundle of the ulnar collateral ligament were used to measure strain, while an optical motion tracking system monitored elbow motion. Strain was measured in the following 3 settings: passive range of motion, 22.2 N isometric flexion and extension contractions, and 3.34 N x m varus and valgus torques with the arm at 90 degrees of flexion. RESULTS: Range of motion from maximum extension to 50 degrees of flexion produced 3% or less strain in both bands of the reconstructed ligament. Forearm rotation did not significantly affect strain in the anterior or posterior bands (P = .336 and P = .357). Strain at 90 degrees approached 7% in the posterior band (upper 95% confidence interval). Isometric muscle contractions had no measurable effect on strain. Varus torques decreased and valgus torques increased strain significantly (P < .05). CONCLUSION: In the immediate postoperative period, full extension is safe, while flexion beyond 50 degrees may place deleterious strain on the reconstruction. Isometric flexion and extension exercises do not increase ligament strain but may be unsafe at 90 degrees of flexion, while valgus exercises (internal rotation at the shoulder) can increase strain in the reconstructed ligament. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results have implications for the development of appropriate rehabilitation protocols after ulnar collateral ligament reconstructive surgery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207