MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411797018 · doi:10.7759/cureus.87053

Evaluation of Functional and Clinical Outcomes Following Surgical Repair of Complete Thumb Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries in Adults: A Systematic Review Across Diverse Populations

2025· review· en· W4411797018 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanuel Kefyalew Assefa, Muhammad Amin, Rahma Hashish, Khaled Agha Tabari, Shivling S Swami, Alousious Kasagga, Lubna Mohammed, Malik Y Husami, Bantayehu Getachew

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLigamentThumbCollateralSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) of the thumb is situated on the inner side of the thumb, near the ulnar aspect of the metacarpophalangeal joint. It plays a crucial role in stabilizing the base of the thumb and contributes to grip strength and overall hand function. UCL injuries account for approximately 86% of all injuries affecting the base of the thumb. Treatment for UCL injuries varies depending on severity. When the UCL of the thumb is completely torn, surgical intervention becomes necessary. Significant gaps in the literature still exist despite the growing number of publications on the surgical treatment of complete thumb UCL tears. Thus, this systematic review synthesized existing research to evaluate the functional and clinical outcomes of surgical treatments for complete UCL ruptures of the thumb across athletes and the general population. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines. However, the review protocol was not prospectively registered in a systematic review database such as PROSPERO. Articles published between January 1, 2015 and January 30, 2025 were identified through reputable databases including PubMed, PubMed Central, Europe PubMed Central, ScienceDirect, Embase, and Google Scholar. This review included English-language studies with accessible full texts, conducted on human subjects; 12 studies were reviewed for analysis. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) critical appraisal tool was used to evaluate all selected systematic reviews, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the cohort and longitudinal studies. A total of 335 patients from 12 studies were analyzed, with follow-up ranging from 6 months to 15 years. The studies included retrospective and prospective cohorts, as well as systematic reviews. Surgical techniques varied and included suture anchors, tendon grafts, suture tape augmentation, and novel methods such as ultrasound-welded anchors and U-shaped Kirschner wires. Most studies reported favorable outcomes in joint stability, range of motion, strength, pain relief, and patient satisfaction. Among athletes, return-to-sport rates were high (up to 98.1%), often within 5-8 weeks postoperatively. Conclusions indicate that surgical management remains the gold standard for complete UCL tears of the thumb, particularly in cases involving Stener lesions, joint instability, or failed conservative treatment. Techniques such as suture anchor repair, tendon graft reconstruction, and internal brace augmentation consistently yield favorable functional and clinical outcomes, including restored strength, reduced pain, and high patient satisfaction. Although earlier intervention generally leads to better results, positive outcomes are observed across diverse populations. This review highlights the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials to standardize surgical indications, techniques, and postoperative care.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.012
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→