ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention versus 2-stage revision for infected total elbow arthroplasty: 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Periprosthetic joint infection after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is associated with substantial morbidity and the need for revision surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize studies on 2-stage exchange and débridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) to determine differences in rates of recurrent infection, risk factors for recurrent infection, noninfectious complications, and functional outcomes. Methods: A systematic search was conducted of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science databases in March 2024 to identify studies on infected TEAs treated with either 2-stage revision surgery or DAIR. Exclusion criteria included duplicate publications, review articles, and studies with a mean follow-up of less than 1 year. Fourteen studies were included in the final analysis. Data abstracted included demographics, treatment modalities, bacterial speciation, rates of recurrent infection, and functional outcomes (range of motion data and Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Results: Two hundred ninety infected TEAs were included across all 14 studies, 131 treated with DAIR and 159 treated with 2-stage exchange. The overall pooled random-effects rate of recurrent infection was 34% (95% confidence interval: 21%-47%). The rate of recurrent infection was significantly lower following 2-stage exchange compared to DAIR (18% vs. 51%, Discussion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes associated with the treatment of TEA periprosthetic joint infection with either DAIR or 2-stage reimplantation, 2-stage exchange was associated with a lower rate of recurrent infection. Incomplete cement removal was a risk factor for recurrent infection. Although it did not reach significance, it appeared that infection with coagulase-negative
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.