ArticleShoulder & elbow2022
Two-stage reimplantation for deep infection after total elbow arthroplasty.
Article in Shoulder & elbow, 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary Total Elbow Arthroplasty With the Coonrad-Morrey Prosthesis in a Chinese Cohort: A Follow-Up of 5-10 Years.Orthopaedic surgery · 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
- Article
- Techniques for removal of well-fixed implants and cement in revision total elbow arthroplasty.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2024Review
- Cortical windows for implant and cement removal during revision total elbow arthroplasty.JSES international · 2024Article
- Elbow Arthroplasty: A Concise Literature Update.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Persistent infection rate after 2-stage reimplantation complicating elbow arthroplasty has been reported to be as high as 25%. The purposes of this retrospective study were to determine the infection eradication rates, complications and outcomes in a cohort of patients treated with two-stage reimplantation for deep periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and to determine possible associated risk factors for treatment failure. Methods: Between 2000 and 2017, 52 elbows underwent a two-stage reimplantation for PJI after TEA. There were 22 males and 30 females with a mean age of 61 (range, 25-82) years. The most common bacterium was Results: PJI was eradicated in 36 elbows (69%). The remaining 16 elbows were considered treatment failures secondary to recurrent infection. The risk of persistent infection was 3.3 times higher in elbows with retained cement (p 0.04), and 3.5 times higher when the infecting organism was Conclusion: Two-stage reimplantation for PJI after TEA was successful in eradicating deep infection in 69% of cases. The eradication of PJI after TEA still needs to be improved substantially.
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.