↓ Skip to main content

What Injury Mechanism and Patterns of Ligament Status Are Associated With Isolated Coronoid, Isolated Radial Head, and Combined Fractures?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
What Injury Mechanism and Patterns of Ligament Status Are Associated With Isolated Coronoid, Isolated Radial Head, and Combined Fractures?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-017-5348-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

In Hyeok Rhyou, Ji-Ho Lee, Kyung Chul Kim, Kee Baek Ahn, Seong Cheol Moon, Hyeong Jin Kim, Jung Hyun Lee

Abstract

Isolated coronoid, isolated radial head, and combined coronoid and radial head fractures are common elbow fractures, and specific ligamentous injury of each fracture configuration has been reported. However, the osseous injury mechanism related to ligament status remains unclear. The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine what ligamentous injury patterns (medial or lateral collateral) and bone contusion patterns (medial or lateral) are associated with isolated coronoid, isolated radial head, and combined coronoid and radial head fractures; (2) to correlate the osseous injury mechanism based on these findings with isolated coronoid, isolated radial head, and combined coronoid and radial head fractures; and (3) to determine whether isolated and combined coronoid fractures have different fracture lines through the coronoid (tip or anteromedial facet), speculated to be caused by different injury mechanisms. Between June 2007 and June 2012, 100 patients with elbow fractures were included in the cohort, with 46 of these patients being excluded owing to incongruity for our surgical indication. Finally, 54 patients with surgically treated elbow fractures who had MRI preoperatively were assessed retrospectively. There were 17 elbows with isolated coronoid fractures, 22 with isolated radial head fractures, and 15 with combined coronoid and radial head fractures. Collateral ligament injury pattern and existence of distal humerus bone contusion were reviewed on MR images. Patients with isolated radial head fractures were at greater risk of medial collateral ligament rupture compared with patients with isolated coronoid fractures (radial head only: 15 of 22 [68%]; coronoid only: three of 17 [18%]; odds ratio [OR], 10.0; 95% CI, 2.2-46.5; p = 0.002). Patients with isolated coronoid fractures had greater risk of lateral ulnar collateral ligament ruptures (coronoid: 16 of 17 [94%]; radial head: seven of 22 [32%]; OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.8-333.3; p < 0.001). The presence of radial head fractures was associated with the risk of lateral bone bruising (isolated radial head fracture: 32 of 37 [86%], isolated coronoid fracture: four of 17 [24%]; OR, 29.6; 95% CI, 5.2-168.9; p < 0.001). Medial bone bruising was only detected in isolated coronoid fractures (isolated coronoid fracture: 12 of 17 [71%], others: zero of 37 [0%]). All isolated coronoid fractures involved the anteromedial facet of the coronoid (17 of 17; 100%). However, combined coronoid and radial head fractures often involved the tip (13 of 15; 87%). Isolated coronoid fractures mostly involved the anteromedial facet of the coronoid process associated with lateral ulnar collateral ligament rupture and medial bone bruising. However, isolated radial head fractures were associated with medial collateral ligament rupture and lateral bone bruising. Combined coronoid and radial head fractures mostly involved a tip fracture of the coronoid with lateral ulnar collateral ligament rupture and lateral bone bruising. Thus surgeons may predict which ligament they should be aware of in the surgical field. Level III, prognostic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 6 12%
Other 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 57%
Engineering 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,016,071
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#534
of 7,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,335
of 324,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#12
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.