Aims. The ulna is an extremely rare location for primary bone tumours of the elbow in paediatrics. Although several reconstruction options are available, the optimal reconstruction method is still unknown due to the rarity of proximal ulna tumours. In this study, we report the outcomes of osteoarticular ulna allograft for the reconstruction of proximal ulna tumours. Methods. Medical profiles of 13 patients, who between March 2004 and November 2021 underwent osteoarticular ulna allograft reconstruction after the resection of the proximal ulna tumour, were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes were measured clinically by the assessment of elbow range of motion (ROM), stability, and function, and radiologically by the assessment of allograft-host junction union, recurrence, and joint degeneration. The elbow function was assessed objectively by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and subjectively by the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) questionnaire. Results. The mean follow-up of patients was 60.3 months (SD 28.5). The mean elbow flexion-extension ROM was 95.8° (SD 21). The mean MSTS of the patients was 84.4 (SD 8.2), the mean TESS was 83.8 (SD 6.7), and the mean MEPS was 79.2 (SD 11.5). All the patients had radiological union at the osteotomy site. Symptomatic osteoarthritic change was observed in three patients (23%), one of whom ended up with elbow joint fusion. Two patients (15.4%) had recurrence during the follow-up period. Surgical complications included two allograft fractures, two plate fractures, three medial instabilities, and two infections. Conclusion. Osteoarticular ulna allograft reconstruction provides acceptable functional outcomes. Despite a high rate of complications, it is still a valuable reconstruction method, particularly in skeletally immature patients who need their distal humerus physis for the rest of hand growth. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):749–757

Aims. There are concerns regarding complications and longevity of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) in young patients, and the few previous publications are mainly limited to reports on linked elbow devices. We investigated the clinical outcome of unlinked TEA for patients aged less than 50 years with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 26 elbows of 21 patients with RA who were aged less than 50 years who underwent primary TEA with an unlinked elbow prosthesis. The mean patient age was 46 years (35 to 49), and the mean follow-up period was 13.6 years (6 to 27). Outcome measures included pain, range of motion, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), radiological evaluation for radiolucent line and loosening, complications, and revision surgery with or without implant removal. Results. The mean MEPS significantly improved from 47 (15 to 70) points preoperatively to 95 (70 to 100) points at final follow-up (p < 0.001). Complications were noted in six elbows (23%) in six patients, and of these, four with an ulnar neuropathy and one elbow with postoperative traumatic fracture required additional surgeries. There was no revision with implant removal, and there was no radiological evidence of loosening around the components. With any revision surgery as the endpoint, the survival rates up to 25 years were 78.1% (95% confidence interval 52.8 to 90.6) as determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Conclusion. The clinical outcome of primary unlinked TEA for young patients with RA was satisfactory and comparable with that for elderly patients. A favourable survival rate without implant removal might support the use of unlinked devices for young patients with this disease entity, with a caution of a relatively high complication rate regarding ulnar neuropathy. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):19–26

Aims. The aims of this study were to validate the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to identify factors that affect the outcome. Methods. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, and Embase from between January 2003 and March 2019. The primary aim was to determine the implant failure rate, the mode of failure, and risk factors predisposing to failure. A secondary aim was to identify the overall complication rate, associated risk factors, and clinical performance. A meta-regression analysis was completed to identify the association between each parameter with the outcome. Results. A total of 38 studies including 2,118 TEAs were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 80.9 months (8.2 to 156). The implant failure and complication rates were 16.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.128 to 0.200) and 24.5% (95% CI 0.203 to 0.293), respectively. Aseptic loosening was the most common mode of failure (9.5%; 95% CI 0.071 to 0.124). The mean postoperative ranges of motion (ROMs) were: flexion 131.5° (124.2° to 138.8°), extension 29.3° (26.8° to 31.9°), pronation 74.0° (67.8° to 80.2°), and supination 72.5° (69.5° to 75.5°), and the mean postoperative Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 89.3 (95% CI 86.9 to 91.6). The meta-regression analysis identified that younger patients and implants with an unlinked design correlated with higher failure rates. Younger patients were associated with increased complications, while female patients and an unlinked prosthesis were associated with aseptic loosening. Conclusion. TEA continues to provide satisfactory results for patients with RA. However, it is associated with a substantially higher implant failure and complication rates compared with hip and knee arthroplasties. The patient’s age, sex, and whether cemented fixation and unlinked prosthesis were used can influence the outcome. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):967–980

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) undertaken for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with TEA performed for post-traumatic conditions with regard to implant failure, functional outcome, and perioperative complications. Materials and Methods. We completed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine cohort studies investigated the outcome of TEA between RA and post-traumatic conditions. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)) guidelines and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of the included studies. We assessed three major outcome domains: implant failures (including aseptic loosening, septic loosening, bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture); functional outcomes (including arc of range of movement, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire), and perioperative complications (including deep infection, intraoperative fracture, postoperative fracture, and ulnar neuropathy). Results. This study included a total of 679 TEAs for RA (n = 482) or post-traumatic conditions (n = 197). After exclusion, all of the TEAs included in this meta-analysis were cemented with linked components. Our analysis demonstrated that the RA group was associated with a higher risk of septic loosening after TEA (odds ratio (OR) 3.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 14.12), while there was an increased risk of bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture in the post-traumatic group (OR 4.72, 95% CI 2.37 to 9.35). A higher MEPS (standardized mean difference 0.634, 95% CI 0.379 to 0.890) was found in the RA group. There were no significant differences in arc of range of movement, DASH questionnaire, and risk of aseptic loosening, deep infection, perioperative fracture, or ulnar neuropathy. Conclusion. The aetiology of TEA surgery appears to have an impact on the outcome in terms of specific modes of implant failures. RA patients might have a better functional outcome after TEA surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1489–1497