ArticleJSES international2024
Cortical windows for implant and cement removal during revision total elbow arthroplasty.
Article in JSES international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revision total elbow arthroplasty (rTEA) remains a technically challenging procedure with potential for substantial morbidity. Cases involving excessively long cement mantles, removal of well-fixed implants or infected revisions requiring complete cement removal introduce additional technical challenges. Our purpose was to describe the outcomes, results, and complications associated with the use of cortical windows in rTEA. In addition, we provide a technical description of the procedure. Methods: rTEA cases utilizing a cortical window performed by two surgeons between 2019 and 2023 were reviewed. Baseline demographics and case characteristics were recorded. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared, including range of motion, radiographic outcomes, surgical complications and patient-reported outcome measures. Results: Seven rTEA cases involving either a humeral or ulnar cortical window were included with an average follow-up of 15 months. Indications for cortical windows included infection, periprosthetic humerus fracture and presumed aseptic loosening. Improvements were noted postoperatively for pain scores, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation elbow scores. Final flexion-extension and pronation-supination were 100° and 156°. One patient (14%) had a postoperative complication (failure of fixation of a periprosthetic humerus fracture). There were no cases of intraoperative iatrogenic fracture or nerve injury. Conclusion: For rTEA cases during which a cortical window was performed, complications occurred infrequently in the short term. In these challenging procedures, cortical windows appear to provide a relatively safe and efficient means of removing excessively long cement mantles or well-fixed components.
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.