Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34123723›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2021

Interposition arthroplasty: Current indications, technique and expectations.

M Morrey, A Dutta, I Whitney, B Morrey

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Technical modifications to elbow interposition arthroplasty].Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M MorreyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
A DuttaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Health Center, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
I WhitneyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Health Center, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
B MorreyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ultimate means of functional restoration of joints with end stage arthritis is prosthetic replacement. Even though there is reluctance to replace the joint of a younger individual, the mean age of joint replacement continues to decrease. This is due to three factors: 1) social expectations, 2) uncertainty with many joint preservation procedures and 3) the ever-increasing reliability and longevity of prosthetic replacement. Unfortunately, the elbow does not share in these advantageous trends to the extent as is the case for the hip, knee and shoulder. Social pressure for restoration of normal or near normal function is certainly present, but the desired improvement of longevity and fewer restrictions of activity have not been documented. Hence, possibly somewhat disproportionately to other joints, there is great need for a reliable and functional non replacement joint reconstruction option. For most other joints, fusion is the ultimate non replacement option. Further, for most joints an optimum position has been defined to allow the greatest chance of normal function of the individual. Unfortunately, there is no truly 'optimum' functional position of elbow fusion, and the recommended 90° of flexion is considered the 'least worse' position. Further, unfortunately, elbow fusion dysfunction cannot be mitigated by compensated shoulder motion. Hence, while there is little experience in general with interposition arthroplasty of the elbow, in the authors' opinion it remains the treatment of choice in some individuals and in certain circumstances for the reasons explained above. In our judgment, the reason for avoiding this procedure is that it is technically difficult, the absolute frequency of need is not great, and outcomes do appear to be a function of experience and technique. Based on these considerations, in this chapter we review the current indications and assessment and selection considerations. Emphasis is placed on our current technique with technical tips to enhance the likelihood of success and longevity. We conclude with a review of expectations based on current literature.

Identifiers

PMID34123723
PMCPMC8170494
OpenAlexW3160632279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.