ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2026
Primary vs. revision total elbow arthroplasty: an updated analysis of short-term complications and associated factors.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, 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: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is an increasingly utilized intervention for a range of pathologies. While the current literature landscape has emphasized reimbursement and long-term outcomes, for example, contemporary comparative data on short-term adverse events between primary and revision TEA remain limited. Therefore, this study updates and expands upon such short-term findings using a large database. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients undergoing primary or revision TEA were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2014-2023). Cases with missing data or complex additional/concurrent procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was a composite of any adverse event (AAE), alongside other subgroupings. Statistics included chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, independent Results: A total of 583 patients underwent primary TEA (mean age = 66.4 ± 13.3; body mass index = 29.9 ± 7.2 kg/m Conclusion: Across this contemporary 10-year national cohort, primary and revision TEAs appeared to show comparable short-term outcomes. These findings cautiously support focused perioperative counseling and suggest that prolonged operative time becomes clinically relevant only at the upper extremes, though incrementally longitudinal, prospective studies are needed for corroboration.
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.