ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Current outcomes of triceps-sparing elbow arthroplasties: a systematic review.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is a reconstructive option for fractures, arthritis, and tumors, particularly in older adults. Approaches for the procedure can be categorized into triceps-sparing (TS) or triceps-detaching (TD). TD approaches are well-studied, but are associated with many complications such as infections, limited range of motion, and triceps insufficiency. Despite being more technically demanding, TS approaches are rising in popularity due to preservation of the triceps insertion. This study consolidates the most recent literature on TS-TEAs and TS elbow hemiarthroplasties (EHAs) to better inform updated clinical decision-making. Methods: A PROSPERO-registered systematic review was conducted on March 10, 2025, searching PubMed, Ovid-Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science for studies published since 2020 that investigate TS elbow arthroplasty findings in adults. Extracted outcomes included demographics, range of motion metrics, and complications. Frequency-weighted means, t-tests, and chi-square tests were accordingly utilized in R Studio for statistical analyses. Results: Eight moderate-quality retrospective studies were identified (5 TS-TEA and 3 TS-EHA) out of 290. Patients (n = 252; TS-TEA 195; TS-EHA 57) had average ages of 64.5 ± 12.5 and 73.1 ± 10.6, with average follow-ups of 43.8 ± 39.5 and 56.3 ± 20.0 months for TS-TEA and TS-EHA, respectively. Average flexion degrees were 129.7° ± 19.5 and 129.0° ± 13.8, followed by extension deficits at 17.9° ± 17.3 and 19.8° ± 12.9, respectively. Average postoperative prosupination arc ranges were 140.6°-144.6° and 155°-171°, respectively. Complication rates were 22.9% after TS-TEA and 54.4% after TS-EHA, characterized by literature-compared high rates of ulnar nerve symptoms and heterotopic ossification, but low rates of infection and triceps insufficiency. Conclusion: TS approaches, either in TEA or EHA, are reasonable options for surgeons today. Further studies are recommended for more granular and consistent elucidation, with arthroplasty approaches remaining individualized to patient needs and surgeon preferences.
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.