ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Total elbow arthroplasty-a historical 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This review aims to examine the evolution of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) implant designs to understand common reasons for failure and optimal strategies to address them. TEA has evolved significantly since its inception, with advancements in biomaterials and implant engineering improving longevity. However, complications such as aseptic loosening, wear-related failure, periprosthetic fracture, infection, and instability remain prevalent. Early TEA designs often mimicked knee replacements and faced high failure rates secondary to poor biomechanics and material limitations. Over time, material improvements, such as titanium alloys and cobalt-chromium components, and refined implant designs have enhanced outcomes. Results: The review identifies key risk factors for TEA failure, including material degradation, technical errors, patient characteristics, and uneven mechanical stress distribution. Advances in implant materials, such as highly cross-linked polyethylene, have significantly reduced wear rates. Improved surgical techniques and patient selection criteria have also contributed to better outcomes. Despite these advancements, challenges persist, particularly in younger and more active patients who place higher mechanical demands on the implants. Discussion and Conclusion: Future research should focus on refining implant biomechanics, developing biofilm-resistant materials, and integrating robotic-assisted surgical techniques to further reduce failure rates and improve long-term outcomes. Enhanced patient education on activity modifications and adherence to postoperative guidelines are crucial for the success of TEA.
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.