Revision Olecranon Fixation: Is Tension Band Wiring the Solution? A Case Series and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal revision construct for failed olecranon fracture fixation is controversial. Here, we aim to review existing revision techniques and describe tension band wiring as a surgical option for these challenging scenarios and to evaluate its clinical and radiographic outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective case series was performed at an urban, university-based, level-1 trauma center. Patients aged 18 to 65 years who underwent revision fixation of their olecranon fracture using tension band wiring were included. The study data were collected through a retrospective chart review and review of the existing radiographic studies. Primary outcome measure was mechanical failure. Secondary outcome measures included nonunion, malunion, medical, and surgical complications. Functional outcome was determined by range of motion and restoration of extensor mechanism strength. RESULTS: A total of five patients were included in this study. Causes for revision were acute implant failure (n = 2), aseptic nonunion (n = 1), and infected nonunion (n = 2). All patients eventually achieved bony union after revision. Two patients required an additional surgery because of Kirschner wire migration (n = 1) and symptomatic implant (n = 1). Average flexion was 126° (range 110 to 135) and average extension was 18° (range 5 to 30). All patients experienced restoration of extensor mechanism with full strength and returned to their previous working status. No other mechanical failures, surgical complications, or medical complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Early results of revision open reduction and internal fixation for failed olecranon fracture fixation using tension band wiring demonstrated favorable outcomes and low complication rates. This technique may be used for revision of failed olecranon fixation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".