ReviewCells2026
Small Wonders: How Nanotechnology Is Redefining Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.
Review in Cells, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNanotechnology has been increasingly incorporated into shoulder and elbow surgery, from bioinductive collagen scaffolds for rotator cuff repair to nanostructured implant surfaces for arthroplasty and nanoparticle-functionalized sutures for elbow tendon repair. This review evaluates the current evidence base for these applications and clarifies which technologies are supported by clinical data versus preclinical/mechanistic evidence alone.
methodsA narrative review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus (January 2005-September 2026), supplemented by manual screening of society guidelines. Of 1842 records identified, 77 articles and 6 guideline documents were considered in the initial evidence synthesis, with 54 references ultimately retained in the published review. Because of heterogeneity in study design (randomized trials, cohorts, and preclinical models), findings were synthesized narratively.
resultsIn rotator cuff repair, bioinductive collagen (REGENETEN) and acellular dermal matrix augmentation have the most mature clinical evidence, with randomized and cohort data showing reduced retear rates, whereas the collagen-PLLA biocomposite (BioBrace) remains largely preclinical. In shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, nanostructured and nanotextured titanium surfaces have preclinical and early clinical support for enhanced osseointegration, while antimicrobial silver and titanium dioxide nanocoatings and metal-phenolic network coatings remain supported chiefly by in vitro and animal data, with cytotoxicity and photocatalytic limitations still unresolved. In elbow surgery specifically, nanoparticle- and gene-functionalized sutures have shown benefit in flexor tendon models with anatomically agnostic translational potential, but direct elbow-specific clinical data are lacking, and applications to the ulnar collateral ligament, cartilage, and total elbow arthroplasty bearings remain at the preclinical or expert-opinion stage.
conclusionsNanotechnology is clinically established only for a small number of shoulder and elbow applications, principally bioinductive collagen augmentation of rotator cuff repair; most other applications, including antimicrobial nanocoatings and elbow-specific nanoparticle delivery systems, remain mechanistically promising but clinically unproven. Progress toward clinical translation will depend on adequately powered trials that separate device-specific effects from the heterogeneous preclinical literature currently supporting the field.
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.