ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Treatment outcomes of periprosthetic joint infections of the elbow: a retrospective cohort study from a single referral centre.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a potentially devastating complication following total elbow arthroplasty. In this retrospective study, we aimed to review our cohort of patients to assess the treatment success rates of elbow PJI using different treatment methods and to report on the additional treatment approach for failed cases.
methodsThe study included 26 patients who underwent revision surgery for elbow PJI between 2007 and 2023. Patients were enrolled if they possessed a minimum follow-up of two years. Success of different treatment strategies, including debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) with or without modular component exchange, and two-stage revision was evaluated, as well as the fate of patients who experienced initial treatment failure.
resultsAt a mean follow-up of 140.5 ± 74.5 months, only 11 patients (42.3%) were successfully treated after a single revision. The overall infection-free survival rates were 65.4% at one year, 50.0% at two years, and 45.8% at five years. DAIR without component exchange had the lowest success (23.1%), while DAIR with modular component exchange and two-stage revision showed the highest (60.0% and 62.5%, respectively). Failed cases (57.7%) required a mean of 2.1 additional procedures to achieve infection control.
conclusionTreatment of elbow PJI remains especially challenging due to an overall high treatment failure. While two-stage exchange appears to be the most effective treatment modality, DAIR with modular component exchange shows promising outcomes in well-fixed prostheses. DAIR without modular components exchange yields poor infection control rates and should be omitted.
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.