ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Outpatient total elbow arthroplasty-outcomes and complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is a surgical procedure used in the management of arthritis and fractures. Outpatient total elbow arthroplasty (OTEA) could be a valid option to reduce workforce burden and cost, provided it can be proven to be equally safe and effective as inpatient TEA. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OTEA. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar using DistillerSR, with predetermined keywords based on the Patient/Problem, Intervention, Control, and Outcome criteria. Studies characterizing OTEA and/or inpatient TEA were included. Total readmissions, revision rates, cost difference, and functional outcome scores were assessed for outpatient vs. inpatient TEA. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. Results: Five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seven hundred twenty-five patients in the outpatient group and 1,461 patients in the inpatient group (control). Incidence of complications was significantly higher in the inpatient cohort compared to the outpatient TEAs (inpatient n = 121 (%) vs. outpatient n = 51 (%), Discussion: Clinical results of outpatient vs. inpatient TEA were similar with respect to overall complications, readmissions, and functional scores, and outpatient TEA was more cost effective. Our review indicates that outpatient TEA can be considered by individual care providers after development of appropriate local pathways. This review highlights the need for further high-quality studies in this niche but clinically important field.
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.