Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction techniques in elbow instability: Jobe versus Docking technique. A systematic review

IF 1.4 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Minerva Orthopedics Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.23736/s2784-8469.23.04367-5
Silvana DE GIORGI, Giovanni VICENTI, Michele COVIELLO, Mario SUMA, Giuseppe D. CASSANO, Francesco MARUCCIA, Claudio BUONO, Anna C. PASSARELLI, Biagio MORETTI
{"title":"Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction techniques in elbow instability: Jobe versus Docking technique. A systematic review","authors":"Silvana DE GIORGI, Giovanni VICENTI, Michele COVIELLO, Mario SUMA, Giuseppe D. CASSANO, Francesco MARUCCIA, Claudio BUONO, Anna C. PASSARELLI, Biagio MORETTI","doi":"10.23736/s2784-8469.23.04367-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears are common in overhead throwing athletes and contact sport ones. The Jobe and docking techniques are the most common techniques used for reconstruction. This systematic review aims to assess the clinical outcome and the complication rates of the surgical techniques currently used.EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane were searched from January 2010 to April 2021 to identify relevant studies. The search terms used were “UCL,” “medial instability of the elbow,” “elbow Docking technique,” and “elbow Jobe technique.” The methodological qualities of the studies were evaluated, relevant data were extracted.EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Five studies, published between 2013 and 2019, were included in this review. Three studies had a level of evidence IV, two studies had a level of evidence III and recruited 600 patients undergoing a Docking and 30 patients undergoing a Jobe technique reconstruction. Patients undergoing Docking procedure registered better clinical and functional outcome, assessed using the Conway Jobe scale compared with patients managed with Jobe technique. Nonetheless, this difference is not significant. Complication rate was 7.5%, mainly affecting the ulnar nerve (95.5%).CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated that both Jobe and Docking techniques are effective and safe in the treatment of UCL rupture. However, future studies with larger sample size of Jobe technique are needed to show statistical differences between these two surgical approaches.","PeriodicalId":53233,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Orthopedics","volume":"247 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/s2784-8469.23.04367-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears are common in overhead throwing athletes and contact sport ones. The Jobe and docking techniques are the most common techniques used for reconstruction. This systematic review aims to assess the clinical outcome and the complication rates of the surgical techniques currently used.EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane were searched from January 2010 to April 2021 to identify relevant studies. The search terms used were “UCL,” “medial instability of the elbow,” “elbow Docking technique,” and “elbow Jobe technique.” The methodological qualities of the studies were evaluated, relevant data were extracted.EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Five studies, published between 2013 and 2019, were included in this review. Three studies had a level of evidence IV, two studies had a level of evidence III and recruited 600 patients undergoing a Docking and 30 patients undergoing a Jobe technique reconstruction. Patients undergoing Docking procedure registered better clinical and functional outcome, assessed using the Conway Jobe scale compared with patients managed with Jobe technique. Nonetheless, this difference is not significant. Complication rate was 7.5%, mainly affecting the ulnar nerve (95.5%).CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated that both Jobe and Docking techniques are effective and safe in the treatment of UCL rupture. However, future studies with larger sample size of Jobe technique are needed to show statistical differences between these two surgical approaches.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肘关节不稳的尺侧副韧带重建技术:Jobe与对接技术。系统回顾
简介:尺侧副韧带(UCL)撕裂是常见的头顶投掷运动员和接触运动的运动员。关节和对接技术是重建中最常用的技术。本系统综述旨在评估目前使用的手术技术的临床结果和并发症发生率。证据获取:检索2010年1月至2021年4月的PubMed、MEDLINE和Cochrane,以确定相关研究。搜索词是“UCL”、“肘关节内侧不稳定”、“肘关节对接技术”和“肘关节Jobe技术”。评估研究的方法学质量,提取相关数据。证据综合:本综述纳入了2013年至2019年发表的五项研究。三项研究的证据水平为IV级,两项研究的证据水平为III级,并招募了600名接受对接的患者和30名接受Jobe技术重建的患者。与采用Jobe技术的患者相比,采用康威Jobe量表评估,接受对接手术的患者的临床和功能结果更好。尽管如此,这种差异并不显著。并发症发生率为7.5%,主要累及尺神经(95.5%)。结论:本系统综述表明Jobe和Docking技术在治疗UCL破裂中是有效和安全的。然而,未来需要更大样本量的Jobe技术研究来证明这两种手术入路之间的统计学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva Orthopedics
Minerva Orthopedics ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
50.00%
发文量
68
期刊最新文献
The management of acute tibio-fibular syndesmotic injuries: an expert survey of AO Trauma Italy members and evidence-based treatment recommendations Complex fractures of the posterior wall of the acetabulum: current concept in the management and results of the Italian survey Holstein-Lewis and Humerus shaft fractures associated with traumatic radial nerve palsy: a national survey among orthopedic trauma surgeons from Italy Lateral clavicle fractures: an expert survey of AO trauma Italy members and evidence-based treatment recommendations Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction techniques in elbow instability: Jobe versus Docking technique. A systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1