ReviewCureus2024
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Total Elbow Arthroplasty in Outpatient Versus Inpatient Settings.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Outpatient total elbow arthroplasty-outcomes and complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Total joint arthroplasties, including total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), are growing in number and shifting toward a younger age group. These procedures are also moving more toward the outpatient setting compared to previous years. We are conducting this study to update and summarize the current knowledge about the outcomes of TEA in outpatient versus inpatient settings. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework to compare TEA outcomes in outpatient versus inpatient settings. Electronic database searches were performed using PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. Previous studies deemed eligible for this study focused on inpatient cohorts and outpatient cohorts or compared inpatient and outpatient cohorts receiving TEA. All data used was obtained from the studies that were included. Three studies were deemed eligible and included a total of 1,634 patients, with 1,048 being inpatient and 586 being outpatient. There was a significant increase in total (any) complication rate (log of odds ratio (lnOR): 1.02, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.68), adverse discharge (lnOR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.92), and surgical site infection (lnOR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.71) in the inpatient setting compared to the outpatient setting. There was no significant difference between outpatient and inpatient settings in regard to readmissions (lnOR: 0.85, 95% CI: -0.95 to 2.66), urinary tract infections (UTI)/renal complications (lnOR: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.17), pneumonia/respiratory failure (lnOR: 0.61, 95% CI: -0.29 to 1.51), deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (lnOR: 0.07, 95% CI: -1.31 to 1.44), sepsis (lnOR: 0.86, 95% CI: -0.50 to 2.21), and wound dehiscence (lnOR: 0.55, 95% CI: -0.58 to 1.68). Our results reveal that with careful patient selection, current surgical techniques, and pain control methods, TEA may be performed in the outpatient setting with less risk of complications and lower financial burden compared to inpatient TEA.
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.