Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38699394›Full record

ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2024

Restoring Functionality: Humeroradial Total Elbow Revision for Salvaging Total Elbow Arthroplasty Failure and Ulnar Bone Loss.

Samuel Shepard, Naem A Mufarreh, Samuel J Shine, H Brent Bamberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Total elbow arthroplasty-a historical review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026
    Review
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

4 authors.

Samuel ShepardDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Kettering Health Dayton, Dayton, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4447-354X
Naem A MufarrehDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Kettering Health Dayton, Dayton, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8815-9988
Samuel J ShineDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Kettering Health Dayton, Dayton, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1479-2910
H Brent BambergerDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Kettering Health Dayton, Dayton, Ohio.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3019-0936

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the number of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) continues to increase worldwide, one might predict the number of revision TEA would rise as well. The most common indications for revision TEA include (a) loosening, (b) infection, and (c) periprosthetic fracture. Although the rate of revision TEA procedures continues to rise due to the infrequency in which they are performed compared to other arthroplasty surgeries, no gold standard algorithm or procedure for managing severe ulnar bone loss in revision TEA has been determined. Various surgical techniques and strategies including allograft-prosthesis composite, custom long prosthesis with or without allograft, and resection arthroplasty have all been employed in attempting to address severe ulnar bone loss in revision TEA. Though the reported outcomes are mixed at best between each treatment strategy with similar complication rates. Another option is implanting the ulnar component into the radius. In those patients with severe ulnar bone loss, a humeroradial TEA revision can provide stability, restore range of motion, and provide pain relief.

Indexed as

bone lossrevisionsalvagetotal elbowtotal elbow arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID38699394
PMCPMC11064473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.