MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416221593 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.13.119

OUTCOMES OF ALL-SUTURE TENSION BAND TECHNIQUE FOR FIXATION OF OLECRANON FRACTURES: A RETROSPECTIVE CASE SERIES

2025· article· en· W4416221593 on OpenAlexaff
Manal Awad, Armin Badre

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTension band wiringOlecranonFixation (population genetics)ElbowRange of motionPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Olecranon fractures are a common orthopedic injury that account for approximately 10% of upper extremity injuries. These injuries have a bimodal distribution with the high energy injuries primarily affecting a younger population and low energy falls affecting the elderly. Tension band wiring is one of the earliest and most common techniques for the fixation of olecranon fractures. Tension band wiring has been shown to result in good functional outcomes but has been fraught with complications related to hardware migration and irritation. Reoperations rates after tension band wiring have been reported as 33.3%-79.2%. Although low-profile, pre-contoured plates have improved the hardware-related complications compared to tension band wiring, hardware removal secondary to plate irritation is still not that uncommon with reported rates ranging from 15%-56%. All-suture tension band technique is a novel technique for fixation of select olecranon fractures which have been shown to have equivalent or superior biomechanical performance to tension band wiring and avoid its hardware-related complications. However, outcomes of this fixation technique are not yet well-reported.The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who underwent all-suture tension band fixation of their olecranon fractures. This study was a retrospective case series of 15 patients with transverse olecranon fracture who underwent all-suture tension band fixation. The operated extremity was placed in a sling after the operation which was removed at the first postoperative visit (~2 weeks postoperatively) and the patients were allowed to work on range of motion (ROM) as tolerated. ROM at 6 weeks and at the time of final follow-up as well as the rate of union were evaluated. Patients charts and perioperative radiographs were evaluated for any complications including but not limited to infection, neurovascular injury, and any reoperations were also recorded, patients reported outcomes were collected prospectively post-operatively using PREE, qDASH and SANE scores. The mean age of patients in our cohort was 55±14, 66% were females. Our average follow-up time was 5±5 months. The patients achieved an average elbow arc of motion of 108°±28° at 6 weeks (extension -21°±8°; flexion 129°±23°) which improved to 133°±13° at the final follow-up (extension -13°±8°; flexion 146°±6°). They also achieve an average forearm arc of rotation of 156°±9° at 6 weeks (supination 80°±7°; pronation 76°±10°) and 157°±8° at the final follow-up (supination 83°±7°; pronation 74°±6°). At the time of final follow-up, patients reported average PREE of 15.8±5.1, qDASH of 10.1±10.2, and SANE score of 93.8±7.6. All patients achieved clinical and radiographic union by the final follow. No clinical or radiographic complications or reoperations were noted during the follow-up period. All-suture tension band technique is a viable option for the management of simple olecranon fractures or fractures with minimal comminution that can be converted to a simple fracture pattern. This technique yields excellent clinical outcomes and avoid hardware related complications associated with tension band wiring and plate fixation. There were no cases of nonunion or reoperation in our cases series. 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207