SINGLE-CENTRE STUDY OF 16 GUEPAR TOTAL ELBOW PROSTHESES AT FOUR YEARS FOLLOW-UP

Abstract

Purpose: We report a series of 16 GUEPAR total elbow prostheses implanted in a single centre.

Material and methods: Between 1988 and 1996, sixteen GUEPAR prostheses were implanted in 13 patients (three bilateral implantations). There were 11 women and two men, mean age 61 years (51–81). Twelve patients (14 elbows) had rheumatoid polyarthritis and one patient (two elbows) had post-traumatic degenerative disease. The V transtricepital approach was used in 15 cases and the Bryan-Morrey approach in one. Postoperatively, the elbows were immobilised at 45° flexion for the normal period (18 days) followed by active mobilisation. Results were analysed with the Mayo Clinic score. The radiographs were examined in search for lucent lines and signs of loosening and prosthetic instability.

Results: At a mean follow-up of four years (2–12), the mean Mayo Clinic score had improved from 33 to 75 points (45–100). Eleven elbows were pain free at last follow-up. Extension and flexion progressed 22° giving a postoperative amplitude of 34° to 129°. Pronation supination progressed by 15° giving a 154° rotation amplitude. The function score improved from 6 to 18 points. Seven of the sixteen elbows achieved normal function. Outcome was excellent for seven elbows, good for one, fair for three and poor for five. In two elbows, instability required changing the ulnar implant. There were four implant loosenings that required revision at 24, 36 ,36 and 48 months after the initial implantation. The radiographic analysis demonstrated a complete lucent line around the humeral and ulnar implant in one case, around the ulnar implant in one case. There were two peroperative fractures of the humerus and on postoperative fracture due to a fall. Ulnar paresthesia was observed in two cases requiring secondary neurolysis in one. There were no infections or secondary injury to the triceps.

Discussion: The GUEPAR prosthesis is a non-constrained prosthesis essentially indicated for rheumatoid polyarthritis. If the intrinsic stability is lost, the implant is contraindicated if there is loss of bone stock or if the instability is major. In selected cases, a generally painless elbow with recovery of the functional amplitude can be achieved with this prosthesis. Nevertheless, the presence of four early loosenings in our series as well as two instabilities suggest this implant should be abandoned in favour of a semi-constrained implant.