Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42069132

Nerve injury in revision total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hamza Tareen·Michael Fox·Anna Panagitidou·Marco Sinisi·Ashley Simpson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is technically demanding and carries a substantial risk of postoperative neurological complications because of scarring, altered anatomy, implant removal, and repeated humeral and ulnar exposure. The incidence, nerve distribution, and recovery profile of nerve injury after revision TEA remain incompletely defined. This study aimed to systematically review the literature to define the incidence, recovery profile, and risk factors for nerve injury after revision TEA. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. Thirteen retrospective case series were included, comprising 282 revision TEAs in 271 patients. Random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was undertaken where the data permitted. The primary outcome was postoperative nerve injury following revision TEA. Secondary outcomes included nerve type, recovery, secondary nerve-related procedures, infection, triceps insufficiency, metallosis, periprosthetic fracture, and re-revision. RESULTS: The pooled incidence of postoperative nerve injury was 22.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.3 to 29.6; I2 = 34.6%). The crude incidence was 60 of 282 revisions (21.3%, 95% CI 16.6 to 26.5). The ulnar nerve was involved in 66.7% of all nerve injuries, the radial nerve in 31.7%, and the median nerve in 1.7%. No significant difference in pooled nerve-injury incidence was identified between studies published before 2010 and those published from 2010 onwards (22.9% vs. 21.4%, P = .837). Recovery reporting was heterogeneous; among injuries with numerically extractable outcomes, 85.4% improved partially or completely (95% CI 72.2 to 93.9). Secondary nerve-related procedures were reported in 7 studies. Pooled complication estimates were 10.2% for infection, 13.6% for triceps insufficiency, 25.5% for metallosis, 15.9% for periprosthetic fracture, and 14.0% for re-revision. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative nerve injury is a common and clinically important complication of revision TEA, affecting approximately 1 in 5 cases. The ulnar nerve is most frequently involved, although radial nerve injury accounts for a substantial proportion of cases. Many neuropathies improve during follow-up, but persistent deficits and the need for secondary nerve-related procedures are not uncommon. Future studies should adopt standardized neurological definitions and reporting to improve comparability and guide preventive surgical strategies.

Explore related subjects

HumansArthroplasty, Replacement, ElbowReoperationPostoperative ComplicationsPeripheral Nerve InjuriesIncidenceRisk FactorsTotal elbow arthroplastymeta-analysisoutcomesperipheral nerve injuryrevision surgeryulnar nerveJournal ArticleSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisReview

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Hamza Tareen, Michael Fox, Anna Panagitidou, Marco Sinisi, Ashley Simpson. 2026-04-30. Nerve injury in revision total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2026.04.042

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Humans subjectIncidence subjectJournal Article subjectJournal Article; Systematic Review; Meta-Analysis; Review resourceMeta-Analysis subjectOutcomes subjectPostoperative Complications subjectSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

The impact of an intact rotator cuff on the outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of 20,924 patients.

BACKGROUND: While reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is commonly utilized for rotator cuff tear arthropathy, indications have expanded to include, primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) with intact cuff. The presence of an intact cuff may influence outcomes after rTSA because preserved cuff musculature can contribute to shoulder stability and force which could potentially improve postoperative function and reduce complication rates. However, studies have reported contradictory results on whether or not an intact cuff would provide better outcomes in patients receiving an rTSA. METHODS: This is a systematic review and Meta-analysis performed according the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were queried through December 2025. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies comparing the outcomes of rTSA based on whether patients had a diagnosis of GHOA with intact cuff, or had a deficient rotator cuff (ie had a diagnosis of rotator cuff tears without OA, or cuff tear arthropathy). Extracted data included adverse events, improvement in patient reported outcome measures, and improvement in range of motion. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective articles and 1 prospective article met the inclusion criteria with 4,542 in the GHOA with intact cuff group and 16,382 in the cuff-deficient group (cuff tear arthropathy: 15,423 patients; rotator cuff tear: 959 patients). Patients undergoing rTSA for GHOA and intact cuff had a lower rate of revisions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.41- 0.68, P < .001; I2 = 0%), overall complications (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.46-0.71, P < .001; I2 = 0%), acromial stress fracture (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.08- 0.59, P = .003; I2 = 0%), infection (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26- 0.73, P = .002; I2 = 37%), and instability (OR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.40- 0.90, P = .01; I2 = 0%). In addition, GHOA patients had a better improvement in both American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (mean difference = 7.17; 95% CI: 2.13- 12.21, P = .005; I2 = 81%) without exceeding the minimal clinically important difference, and external rotation (mean difference = 12.00&#xb0;; 95% CI: 9.63- 14.37, P < .001; I2 = 38%). CONCLUSION: Rotator cuff-deficient patients undergoing rTSA have a higher risk of postoperative complications compared to patients undergoing rTSA for GHOA with an intact cuff. They also showed less improvement in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores and external rotation. However, the clinical significance of these differences should be interpreted with caution, as not all improvements exceeded established thresholds for clinical importance.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Antibiotic-impregnated bone graft to prevent infection after total hip arthroplasty (ABOGRAFT): protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown promising results using bone graft as a carrier for local administration of antibiotics to reduce the risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). The objective of this clinical trial is to determine if tobramycin and vancomycin-impregnated bone graft is safe and effective in reducing the rate of PJI after total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is an international, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical drug trial. Patients scheduled for THA (n=1100) requiring bone grafting (excluding revisions due to an ongoing infection) are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to prophylactic treatment with tobramycin and vancomycin or placebo-impregnated bone graft.The primary outcome is the time to reoperation due to infection or diagnosis of PJI, expressed as a relative risk difference between the two groups. A risk reduction of at least 50% is considered clinically relevant. Secondary outcomes are time to and reason for reoperation and implant revision, type of micro-organism and antibiotic susceptibility pattern within 2 and 5 years after surgery. Safety outcomes are the number of adverse events and revision rate due to aseptic loosening. The primary analysis will be performed using proportional hazard models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved under the Clinical Trial Regulation No 536/2014 (EU CT; 2024-510921-25-00). Results will be published in open-access peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to patient organisations and the media, and de-identified individual participant data will be curated and shared on reasonable request in accordance with the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse principles, subject to the laws and regulations governing data protection in each participating country. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05169229.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Do wound protectors reduce contamination in total shoulder arthroplasty? A randomized controlled trial.

HYPOTHESIS: Cutibacterium acnes is the most frequent cause of shoulder prosthetic joint infection with skin edges as a source of wound contamination. The primary purpose of this study was to determine if the use of a wound protector device decreases the deep wound bacterial colonization in primary shoulder arthroplasty. The secondary purpose was to assess the effect of device usage on deltopectoral muscle and cephalic vein injury. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. A total of 100 patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups: a wound protector group and a control group. Five patients withdrew from the study, leaving 48 patients in the wound protector group and 47 controls. Three deep wound culture swabs were taken after final arthroplasty implantation. The surgeon also graded deltoid, pectoralis major, and cephalic vein injury on a 0-3 scale based on modification to the Tscherne classification of soft tissue injury. The primary outcome of this study was positive culture results for C acnes. Secondary outcomes included total bacterial culture positivity as well as soft tissue injury grades. A subanalysis removing likely contaminant positive cultures (growth >7 days and 1 colony only) was also performed. Comparisons between groups were made using Fisher exact test for categorical outcomes and t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: The use of a wound protector did not result in any significant differences compared with controls in the rate of positive cultures for C acnes (15% vs. 21%, P = .593) or all bacteria (15% vs. 26%, P = .304). Removing likely contaminant positive cultures did not demonstrate any significant difference in culture positivity (9% vs. 17%, P = .355, for C acnes; 9% vs. 19%, P = .231, for all bacterial species). The wound protector group had better soft tissue injury scores for the deltoid muscle (P < .001) and pectoralis muscle (P < .001). No difference in cephalic vein injury was noted between the 2 groups (P > .05). No difference in surgical time was noted. CONCLUSION: The use of a surgical wound protector device in total shoulder arthroplasty did not significantly decrease bacterial colonization of the deep wound. However, soft tissue damage to the deltoid and pectoralis muscle was less severe in the wound protector group. These findings suggest that this device reduces iatrogenic soft tissue injury.

Humans↗