Techniques for removal of well-fixed implants and cement in revision total elbow arthroplasty.

Jessica L Koshinski, A Michael Luciani, Yagiz Ozdag, Jessica L Baylor, Louis C Grandizio

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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.

Comparison of inpatient charges and costs between revision and primary total elbow arthroplasty in the New York state.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026
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.

Jessica L KoshinskiGeisinger MSKI Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Danville, PA, USA.

A Michael LucianiGeisinger MSKI Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Danville, PA, USA.

Yagiz OzdagGeisinger MSKI Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Danville, PA, USA.

Jessica L BaylorGeisinger MSKI Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Danville, PA, USA.

Louis C GrandizioGeisinger MSKI Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Danville, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Revision total elbow arthroplasty (rTEA) is a technically challenging procedure that is associated with high rates of surgical complications. Cement removal remains an important and difficult component of rTEA. Particularly in the case of prosthetic joint infection following TEA, failure to remove all of the cement from the index procedure results in higher rates of recurrent or persistent infection. Options for cement removal include the use of nonpowered instruments, powered instruments, ultrasonic devices, arthroscopic-assisted techniques, bone episiotomies, and cortical windows. Carefully assessing the risks and benefits of each of these techniques can provide aid in both improving surgical efficiency and potentially reducing surgical morbidity during these complex procedures. The purpose of this narrative review was to explore technical aspects of cement removal for well-fixed implants during rTEA.

Indexed as

CementComplicationsElbow surgeryProsthetic joint infectionRevision total elbow arthroplastyTotal elbow arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID39474180

DOI10.1016/j.xrrt.2024.05.011

PMCPMC11514084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

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.