We have located links that may give you full text access.
Complications and Outcomes After Medial Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-Regression and Systematic Review.
JBJS Reviews 2018 May
BACKGROUND: Evidence is limited regarding the complications and outcomes after medial ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction. The published data regarding this procedure are composed predominantly of small Level-III and IV retrospective studies for which meta-analysis is not generally useful. Meta-regression is an alternative technique to identify variables across multiple publications that have an effect on published outcomes and complication rates.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of published literature for outcomes after UCL reconstruction. A random effects meta-regression model was constructed to identify the association of study characteristics with outcome proportions. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of influential studies on the results.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies (median sample size, 26 patients; range, 10 to 743 patients) were included in the systematic review and meta-regression. These studies included a total of 1,177 patients with a reported Conway outcome rating (a measure of a patient's return to play). The majority of patients (mean, 83.2%) achieved an excellent Conway rating. Studies involving the docking technique were more likely to have a higher percentage of patients with an excellent outcome (14% risk difference compared with the figure-of-8 technique, p = 0.002) and lower reported rates of ulnar neurapraxia (Spearman correlation = -0.83). A lower reported rate of ulnar neurapraxia was strongly associated with the likelihood of an excellent (p = 0.01) or good or excellent (p = 0.001) Conway outcome rating.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial heterogeneity among study outcomes, studies that involved a docking technique and that had lower reported rates of ulnar neurapraxia were associated with greater percentages of excellent or good-to-excellent reported Conway outcome ratings.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of published literature for outcomes after UCL reconstruction. A random effects meta-regression model was constructed to identify the association of study characteristics with outcome proportions. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of influential studies on the results.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies (median sample size, 26 patients; range, 10 to 743 patients) were included in the systematic review and meta-regression. These studies included a total of 1,177 patients with a reported Conway outcome rating (a measure of a patient's return to play). The majority of patients (mean, 83.2%) achieved an excellent Conway rating. Studies involving the docking technique were more likely to have a higher percentage of patients with an excellent outcome (14% risk difference compared with the figure-of-8 technique, p = 0.002) and lower reported rates of ulnar neurapraxia (Spearman correlation = -0.83). A lower reported rate of ulnar neurapraxia was strongly associated with the likelihood of an excellent (p = 0.01) or good or excellent (p = 0.001) Conway outcome rating.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial heterogeneity among study outcomes, studies that involved a docking technique and that had lower reported rates of ulnar neurapraxia were associated with greater percentages of excellent or good-to-excellent reported Conway outcome ratings.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app