Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36374842›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Postoperative management of total elbow arthroplasty: Results of a European survey among orthopedic surgeons.

Willemijn van Dam, Danielle Meijering, Martin Stevens, Alexander L Boerboom, Denise Eygendaal

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06895239 (Elbow Arthroplasty and Patient Reported Post-operative Activities), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

NCT06895239 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Elbow Arthroplasty and Patient Reported Post-operative Activities

TypeobservationalSponsorRobert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District NHS TrustRan2025 to 2026Enrolled150ConditionsElbow Arthropathy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Total elbow arthroplasty-a historical review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Willemijn van DamDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5883-0662
Danielle MeijeringDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Martin StevensDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8183-6894
Alexander L BoerboomDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7904-2593
Denise EygendaalDepartment of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of complications after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is high and survival rates are low compared to hip and knee arthroplasties. The most common reason for revision is aseptic loosening, which might be caused by overloading of the elbow. In an attempt to lower failure rates, current clinical practice is to restrict activities for patients with a TEA. However, postoperative management of TEA is a poorly investigated topic, as no evidence-based clinical guidelines exist and the aftercare is often surgeon-based. In this study we evaluated the current postoperative management of TEA among orthopedic surgeons.

methodsAn online survey of 30 questions was sent to 635 members of the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and the Elbow (SECEC/ESSSE), about 10% (n = ± 64) of whom are considered dedicated elbow specialists. The questions were on characteristics of the surgeon and on the surgeon's preferred postoperative management, including items to be assessed on length of immobilization, amount of weight bearing and axial loading, instructions on lifelong activities, physiotherapy, and postoperative evaluation of the elbow.

resultsThe survey was completed by 54 dedicated elbow specialists from 17 different countries. Postoperative immobilization of the elbow was advised by half of respondents when using the triceps-sparing approach (52%), and even more with the triceps-detaching approach (65%). Postoperative passive movement of the elbow was allowed in the triceps-sparing approach (91%) and in the triceps-detaching approach (87%). Most respondents gave recommendations on weight bearing (91%) or axial loading (76%) by the affected elbow, but the specification shows significant variation.

conclusionThe results from this survey demonstrate a wide variation in postoperative care of TEA. The lack of consensus in combination with low survival rates stresses the need for clinical guidelines. Further research should focus on creating these guidelines to improve follow-up care for TEA.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, ElbowElbow JointOrthopedic SurgeonsElbowHumansReoperationSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID36374842
PMCPMC9662720
OpenAlexW4308964294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.