Evidence Hub

Surgical Outcomes of Lateral Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction Versus Repair for Posterolateral Rotatory Instability of the Elbow: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

E. Kholinne, Z. Ng, M. Anastasia, L. C. Singjie, Jae-Man Kwak, In-ho Jeon

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 2025

646 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Background: The aim of surgical treatment for posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) of the elbow is to restore the integrity of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL), with ligamentous reconstruction being the preferred option for recurrent symptomatic PLRI. However, there is no clinical evidence demonstrating the superiority of reconstruction versus repair. Treatment options currently depend on the cause of the LUCL injury and surgeon preference. Purpose: To review studies comparing surgical outcomes of LUCL reconstruction versus repair in treating PLRI of the elbow. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Medline (via EBSCO), ProQuest, and ScienceDirect databases using the following keywords: “(lateral ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction)” OR “(lateral ulnar collateral ligament repair)” AND “(outcome).” Excluded were studies in languages other than English, those that included terrible triad injury, transolecranon fracture, radial head arthroplasty involvement, associated procedures, animal studies, and biomechanical studies. A total of 193 studies were identified after the initial search. The primary outcome measure was the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, which was compared between studies using a random-effects model. Results: Overall, 20 studies (N = 646 patients)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 646 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free