MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402564278 · doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2024.09.001

Medial elbow approaches for coronoid fractures: risk to the ulnar nerve

2024· article· en· W4402564278 on OpenAlexaff
Olawale A. Sogbein, S. Rupasinghe, Y. Li, Yousif Atwan, Armin Badre, Thomas J. Goetz, Graham J.W. King

Bibliographic record

VenueJSES International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaHand and Upper Limb ClinicSturgeon Community HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElbowUlnar nerveMedicineUlnar neuropathyAnatomyOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Coronoid fractures often require open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) to restore elbow stability. The flexor pronator split, flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) split, and Taylor and Scham (T&S) approaches are frequently used medial approaches to access the coronoid. The ulnar nerve can be released or transposed when performing these exposures. The optimal medial surgical approach and management of the ulnar nerve has not been clearly defined. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative ulnar nerve complications in coronoid fractures undergoing ORIF following a medial surgical approach and ulnar nerve release or transposition. Methods A retrospective review of 91 patients with coronoid fractures treated with ORIF using a medial approach from 2004 to 2022 was performed at three academic medical centers. Patients ≥ 18 years of age who sustained coronoid fractures with or without associated injuries were included. Patient charts and perioperative imaging were reviewed. Patient demographics, fracture classification, associated injuries, surgical approaches, ulnar nerve management, and postoperative complications were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were signs and symptoms of postoperative ulnar nerve neuropathy. Results The mean age of the cohort was 45 ± 16 years, 71% were males, with a mean length of follow-up of 16 ± 22 months. Of the 91 coronoid fractures, 69 were anteromedials, eight were tips, and 14 were basal types. The incidence of preoperative ulnar neuropathy was 5% (n = 5). The incidence of postoperative ulnar neuropathy was 33% (n = 30) of which 55% (n = 16) completely resolved by final follow-up. The rate of postoperative ulnar neuropathy was not significantly different between in situ release 30% (n = 9) or transposition of the ulnar nerve 34% (n = 20), ( P = .64). There was a significantly higher rate of postoperative resolution with transposition (70%) versus in situ release (22%), ( P = .045). The rate of postoperative ulnar neuropathy was not significantly different between the FCU, T&S, or flexor pronator split approaches, ( P = .331). Finally, the rate of neuropathy resolution was not significantly different between medial approaches ( P = .46). Conclusion There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative ulnar nerve complications with ulnar nerve transposition or in situ release following coronoid fixation. However, transposing the nerve resulted in a higher rate of neuropathy resolution. While the incidence of postoperative ulnar nerve dysfunction is high following coronoid fixation when using a medial surgical approach, it was similar with the FCU, T&S, and flexor pronator split approaches. Larger cohorts and randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJSES InternationalSame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207