Effect of Concomitant Elbow Injuries on the Outcomes of Radial Head Arthroplasty: A Cohort Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare physical impairments and patient-reported outcomes in patients after simple and complex elbow injuries who were treated with radial head arthroplasty. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Quaternary upper extremity referral hospital. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: 148 patients with isolated elbow trauma and no previous injury to the elbow were prospectively enrolled after radial head arthroplasty for an acute unreconstructable fracture. Injury patterns were classified as simple or complex based on the presence or absence of associated elbow fractures and/or dislocation. INTERVENTION: Radial head arthroplasty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE), Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, range of motion (ROM), and Biodex measurements. RESULTS: At a minimum 1-year follow-up PREE and Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, and ROM and strength values were similar. Forty-four patients evaluated at a mean of 7 years demonstrated no effect of injury pattern on clinical outcomes at any time point. Continued statistical improvements in PREE, supination ROM, and flexion ROM at medium term compared with earlier follow-up were observed. Eight patients required secondary surgery, 2 in the simple injury group and 6 complex injury patients. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant elbow injuries do not affect the longer term outcomes of patients with unreconstructable radial head fractures requiring radial head arthroplasty. Patient outcomes continued to improve beyond 2 years of follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".