ReviewJSES international2026
Technological advancements for surgical planning and intraoperative navigation in elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review.
Review in JSES international, 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
Background: Due to the complex load transmission across the elbow and the limited systems available for total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), optimal implant positioning, which is crucial for achieving satisfactory functional outcomes and longstanding implant survival, remains challenging. Technological advancements in orthopedic surgery are rapidly evolving, with some of the main goals including improving implant positioning. In contrast to more common arthroplasties, these techniques are rarely described for TEA. The purpose of this review is to assess the current technologies available for TEA and investigate whether these are beneficial for surgical accuracy, functional outcomes, and implant survival. Methods: A systematic search using Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar was used to identify articles investigating the use of novel technologies in surgical planning for TEA. Results: A total of 16 articles, published between 2007 and 2022, were included in this systematic review. Augmented reality, robotic tracking systems, patient-specific instrumentation, and 3-dimensional planning or printing were investigated in a total of 89 patients and 55 cadaver elbows. Compared to conventional methods, implant positioning was significantly improved using these novel technologies with similar short-term functional outcomes. Conclusion: Despite being sparsely investigated, several novel technologies are nowadays available for TEA. These technologies show improved implant positioning following TEA when compared to conventional planning methods. Although superior implant positioning did not directly translate into significantly better clinical outcomes, further investigation of the effect on long-term outcomes and implant survival is needed to assess the potential benefit of these techniques in future 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.