ReviewPatient safety in surgery2025
Classification-based treatment of periprosthetic fractures around total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Patient safety in surgery, 2025. 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.
- [Periprosthetic fractures after elbow arthroplasty].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTreatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow remains a challenge. The goal of this study was to present classification-based treatment strategies of periprosthetic fractures around elbow prosthesis.
methodsThis study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of published articles in English or German language that investigated classification systems and treatment strategies of fractures around elbow prosthesis without timeframe limitations. Articles without full-text availability were excluded. The search included the following data bases: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science (WoS). The fractures where classified according to the most commonly utilized classification system. Outcome parameters included follow-up time, bone union and range of motion. After deduplication title and abstract screening and full-text analyses were performed by two independent researchers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROBINS 1) for non-randomized studies.
resultsThis systematic review included 26 articles that included 11 reviews (42.3%), 12 case reports (46.1%) and 3 (11.6%) cohort studies. In total 85 patients were included with a mean age of 68.7 (SD 11.1) years. Most patients were female (n = 61, 73.5%). Fractures were all classified according to Mayo classification. In most reports, type 1 fractures without stem loosening were treated non-operatively, type 2 and 3 fractures without stem loosening with fracture fixation, type 2 fractures with stem loosening with revision arthroplasty. The time to bone union was comparable in fracture fixation versus revision surgery (18.2, SD 9.4 weeks vs. 12.3, SD 5.4 weeks, p = 0.294). The degree/ (or range) of extension was comparable in both groups (9.8, SD 11.2° versus 17.4, SD 16.6°, p = 0.335). The degree of flexion was comparable in both groups (117.5, SD 15.1° versus 127.9, SD 10.3°, p = 0.335).
conclusionTreatment of periprosthetic fractures around elbow arthroplasty remains a challenge. The treatment strategy is based on the location of the fracture and the stability of the elbow prosthesis. The lack of high-quality research prohibits a final evidence- based recommendation for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow.
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.