ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2023
Review of bone deficiency in total elbow arthroplasty revision.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total elbow arthroplasty-a historical review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- Outcomes after contact and distance elbow arthrodesis: a retrospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes of allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction in revision total elbow arthroplasty with significant bone loss: a systematic review.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Total elbow arthroplasty revision rates have been increasing over time due to the increasing use of the procedure with the accompanying increase in complications. The most common complications that typically require revision surgery include aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fractures, infection, and component failure. The associated instability has an overall revision rate reported to be as high as 13%. One important factor when performing a revision surgery is bone quality and bone loss; this represents a challenge during the clinical decision-making process. Currently, there are several strategies used to address bone loss such as arthrodesis, resection arthroplasty, impaction grafting, allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction, and custom prostheses. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive review of the current strategies to improve diagnosis of failed total elbow arthroplasty and improve management and outcomes of this patient population.
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.