ArticleSICOT-J2022
Staged revision still works for chronic and deep infection of total elbow arthroplasty?
Article in SICOT-J, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Parkinson Disease a Risk Factor After Total Elbow Arthroplasty? Midterm Survivorship in a Matched Cohort.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Hip Fracture Risk Following Lumbar Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Construct Length and Age-Stratified Outcomes.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention versus 2-stage revision for infected total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- The Recent Surgical Treatment of Elbow Pain.Ewha medical journal · 2023Review
- Elbow Arthroplasty: A Concise Literature Update.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeInfected total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is challenging. We evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes for chronic and deep infection of TEA with two-stage revision surgery.
methodsA total of 10 elbows were included in the study. The mean age was 69.1 ± 15 years (range, 34-83 years). The mean follow-up was 62 (range, 24-108) months. The clinical outcomes were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM) arc, and Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS). Moreover, radiographic outcomes, time to revision, pathogenic bacteria, preoperative complications, and disease period were evaluated.
resultsMean preoperative VAS score of 6.1 had improved to 3.3. Mean preoperative ROM was 68° (flexion-extension), which improved to 86.7°. Mean preoperative MEPS was 46 (range, 0-70), which improved to 75.5 (range, 35-85). The mean disease duration was 8.4 months (range, 5-20 months). The most common causative organism was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The second revision rate was 80% at the final follow-up. Radiographic outcome at final follow-up showed that 3 (30%) of 10 patients exhibited radiolucency evidence around the components. Three patients showed nonprogressive radiolucency around the implant interfaces without other indications of infection at the most recent follow-up.
conclusionIn patients with chronic and deep infection of TEA, two-stage revision can be an affordable option for eradication of the infection, relieving pain, and restoring joint function. However, the high second revision rate owing to bone and soft-tissue deficits remains a critical issue. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Case series, Treatment study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.