Mavrommatis · HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 2026 · narrative review · n=?

Elbow Medial Ulnar Collateral Ligament Repair Versus Reconstruction Versus Augmented Reconstruction: Where Do We Stand?

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Narrative review of surgical techniques without systematic search methodology or pooled data

PubMed 42539553 · doi:10.1177/15563316261472449 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

The authors reviewed the surgical management options for elbow medial ulnar collateral ligament (MUCL) injuries, particularly in adolescent and young adult overhead throwing athletes. The review assessed indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes across MUCL-augmented repair with internal bracing, traditional reconstruction, reconstruction augmented with internal bracing, and revision MUCL reconstruction.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical data, effect estimates, or statistical comparisons. It qualitatively reports that while traditional MUCL reconstruction remains the gold standard, augmented repair and augmented reconstruction techniques show promising outcomes, emphasizing native tissue preservation, anatomic restoration, and individualized patient selection.

Why it matters

This review outlines the shift in managing MUCL injuries in throwing athletes from standard reconstruction toward tissue-sparing and augmented repair techniques aimed at optimizing return to sport.

Limits

As a narrative review, it lacks systematic search criteria, quality appraisal, and meta-analytic pooling. The abstract does not report study counts, sample sizes, specific patient outcomes, reoperation rates, or long-term comparative efficacy data.

Cited by