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.

Aims

The aims of this study were to identify and evaluate the current literature examining the prognostic factors which are associated with failure of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA).

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).

Open debridement and Outerbridge and Kashiwagi debridement arthroplasty (OK procedure) are common surgical treatments for elbow arthritis. However, the literature contains little information on the long-term survivorship of these procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine the survivorship after elbow debridement techniques until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and revision surgery. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent open elbow surgical debridement (open debridement, OK procedure) between 2000 and 2015. Patients were diagnosed with primary elbow osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, or inflammatory arthritis. A total of 320 patients had primary surgery including open debridement (n=142) and OK procedure (n=178), and of these 33 patients required a secondary revision surgery (open debridement, n=14 and OK procedure, n=19). The average follow-up time was 11.5 years (5.5 - 21.5 years). Survivorship was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Log Rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used assess the likelihood of conversion to total elbow arthroplasty or revision surgery while adjusting for covariates (age, gender, diagnosis). Significance was set p<0.05. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed open debridement was 100.00% at 1 year, 99.25% at 5 years, and 98.49% at 10 years and for OK procedure 100.00% at 1 year, 98.80% at 5 years, 97.97% at 10 years (p=0.87) for conversion to total elbow arthroplasty. There was no difference in survivorship between procedures after adjusting for significant covariates with the cox proportional hazard model. The rate of revision for open debridement and OK procedure was similar at 11.31% rand 11.48% after 10 years respectively. There were higher rates of revision surgery in patients with open debridement (hazard ratio, 4.84 CI 1.29 – 18.17, p = 0.019) compared to OK procedure after adjusting for covariates. We also performed a stratified analysis with radiographic severity as an effect modifier and showed grade 3 arthritis did better with the OK procedure compared to open debridement for survivorship until revision surgery (p=0.05). However, this difference was not found for grade 1 or grade 2 arthritis. This may suggest that performing the OK procedure for more severe grade 3 arthritis could decrease reoperation rates. Further investigations are needed to better understand the indications for each surgical technique. This study is the largest cohort of open debridement and OK procedure with long term follow-up. We showed that open elbow debridement and the OK procedure have excellent survivorship until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and are viable options in the treatment of primary elbow osteoarthritis and post traumatic cases. The OK procedure also has lower rates of revision surgery than open debridement, especially with more severe radiographic arthritis

Open debridement and Outerbridge and Kashiwagi debridement arthroplasty (OK procedure) are common surgical treatments for elbow arthritis. However, the literature contains little information on the long-term survivorship of these procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine the survivorship after elbow debridement techniques until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and revision surgery. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent open elbow surgical debridement (open debridement, OK procedure) between 2000 and 2015. Patients were diagnosed with primary elbow osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, or inflammatory arthritis. A total of 320 patients had primary surgery including open debridement (n=142) and OK procedure (n=178), and of these 33 patients required a secondary revision surgery (open debridement, n=14 and OK procedure, n=19). The average follow-up time was 11.5 years (5.5 - 21.5 years). Survivorship was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Log Rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used assess the likelihood of conversion to total elbow arthroplasty or revision surgery while adjusting for covariates (age, gender, diagnosis). Significance was set p<0.05. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed open debridement was 100.00% at 1 year, 99.25% at 5 years, and 98.49% at 10 years and for OK procedure 100.00% at 1 year, 98.80% at 5 years, 97.97% at 10 years (p=0.87) for conversion to total elbow arthroplasty. There was no difference in survivorship between procedures after adjusting for significant covariates with the cox proportional hazard model. The rate of revision for open debridement and OK procedure was similar at 11.31% rand 11.48% after 10 years respectively. There were higher rates of revision surgery in patients with open debridement (hazard ratio, 4.84 CI 1.29 - 18.17, p = 0.019) compared to OK procedure after adjusting for covariates. We also performed a stratified analysis with radiographic severity as an effect modifier and showed grade 3 arthritis did better with the OK procedure compared to open debridement for survivorship until revision surgery (p=0.05). However, this difference was not found for grade 1 or grade 2 arthritis. This may suggest that performing the OK procedure for more severe grade 3 arthritis could decrease reoperation rates. Further investigations are needed to better understand the indications for each surgical technique. This study is the largest cohort of open debridement and OK procedure with long term follow-up. We showed that open elbow debridement and the OK procedure have excellent survivorship until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and are viable options in the treatment of primary elbow osteoarthritis and post traumatic cases. The OK procedure also has lower rates of revision surgery than open debridement, especially with more severe radiographic arthritis

Aims

The aim of this study was to develop and internally validate a prognostic nomogram to predict the probability of gaining a functional range of motion (ROM ≥ 120°) after open arthrolysis of the elbow in patients with post-traumatic stiffness of the elbow.

Aim. The aim of this study was to report the long-term outcome and implant survival of the lateral resurfacing elbow (LRE) arthroplasty in the treatment of elbow arthritis. Patients and Methods. We reviewed a consecutive series of 27 patients (30 elbows) who underwent LRE arthroplasty between December 2005 and January 2008. There were 15 women and 12 men, with a mean age of 61 years (25 to 82). The diagnosis was primary hypotrophic osteoarthritis (OA) in 12 patients (14 elbows), post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) in five (five elbows) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in ten patients (11 elbows). The mean clinical outcome scores including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons elbow score (ASES-e), the mean range of movement and the radiological outcome were recorded at three, six and 12 months and at a mean final follow-up of 8.3 years (7.3 to 9.4). A one sample t-test comparing pre and postoperative values, and survival analysis using the Kaplan–Meier method were undertaken. Results. A statistically significantly increased outcome score was noted for the whole group at each time interval. This was also significantly increased at each time in each of the subgroups (OA, RA, and PTOA). Implant survivorship was 100%. Conclusion. We found that the LRE arthroplasty, which was initially developed for younger patients with osteoarthritis, is an effective form of surgical treatment for a wider range of patients with more severe degenerative changes, irrespective of their cause. It is therefore a satisfactory alternative to total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and has lower rates of complications in the subgroups of patients we have studied. It does not require activities to be restricted to the same extent as following TEA. Based on this experience, we now recommend LRE arthroplasty rather than TEA as the primary form of implant for the treatment of patients with OA of the elbow. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:338–45

Background. The optimal treatment for symptomatic elbow osteoarthritis remains debatable especially in patients still involved in heavy manual work. The Outerbridge-Kashiwagi (OK) procedure has been used when simple measures fail. The aim of this study is to analyse the results of the OK procedure in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis. Methods. Twenty-two patients were included in the study. The male:female ratio was 18:4. The mean age was 60 years with mean follow-up of 38 months (24–60 months). 17 were manual workers, 3 involved in sports activities and 2 non-manual workers. All patients were assessed using Mayo Elbow Performance Index Score system. Preoperative radiological assessment showed osteophytes around olecranon and coronoid process and joint space narrowing in radio-humeral articulationin all cases. Results. There was a significant improvement (p<0.05) in movement in the flexion-extension axis from 78.2° to 107.3°. There was a significant reduction in pain post-operatively (p<0.001). Mean MEPI score improved from 50 to 87.4 post surgery which was significant (p<0.05). One patient had ulnar nerve palsy which resolved in six months with conservative management. The results were excellent in six patients (27%), good in fifteen (68%), fair in one (5%) and one (5%) had poor result. Discussion and conclusion. The present study indicates that the OK procedure provides significant pain relief and a functionally useful range of movement of more than 100°. The procedure can be used in high demand patients, wherein total elbow replacement is not indicated. It significantly reduces the disability in patients with significant elbow arthritis

Purpose:. Interposition arthroplasty is a salvage procedure for patients with severe osteoarthritis of the elbow where conservative treatment failed. It is mostly performed in younger patients where total joint replacement is contraindicated and an arthrodesis is unattractive. Although one of the oldest reconstructive options for elbow arthritis, the procedure is not without complications. There are only a few case series described in the literature. The purpose of our study is to review our cases and report their outcome. Method. We retrospectively reviewed 18 consecutive cases of interposition arthroplasty between 2001 and 2010. 2 cases were excluded due to incomplete records. The mean patient age was 41.3 (19.4–58.6) years at time of surgery. The primary diagnosis was post-traumatic osteoarthritis in 11 cases and inflammatory osteoarthritis in 5 cases. The mean follow up was 4.7 (0.4–10) years. Pre- and post-operative pain and function was evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS). The complications and the number of re-operations and revisions were recorded. Summary of results:. In 12 (75%) cases at least one revision operation was performed, because of sepsis, ulnar nerve symptoms, instability and unsatisfactory clinical results. Sepsis rate was 25%. In 7 cases there was an unsatisfactory clinical result (i.e. ongoing pain and poor function), resulting in revision by total elbow replacement in 4 cases, arthrodesis in 2 cases and a re-do interposition in 1 case. The mean interval from the interposition to revision procedure was 2.6 (0.6–7.4) years. In 9 patients with the interposition currently in situ, mean VAS improved from 7.4 to 2.4 and mean MEPS from 42 (30–60) to 75 (40–100). Conclusion:. Interposition arthroplasty offered improvement in pain and function, but at a high cost. It is associated with a high rate of complications and need for revision surgery that we feel might be unacceptable

Between 1994 and 2002, 81 patients underwent ulnohumeral arthroplasty for elbow arthritis at our institution. All patients were sent a questionnaire with a request to attend for a clinical evaluation. Forty replied and 34 attended for clinical examination, 6 females and 34 males with an average age of 63 years (32-80) and a mean follow-up of 6 years (2-10). There were 22 (55%) patients with primary osteoarthritis, 14 (35%) with osteoarthritis secondary to trauma, two patients with rheumatoid arthritis and one patient each with arthrogryphosis multiplex congenital and post-septic arthritis of the elbow. Using the VAS (0-10), the pain score was seen to improve from a mean pre-operative score of 8 (6-10) to 4 (0-9). 21 patients (50%) were on minimal or no analgesia and 31 (75%) patients felt they would have the surgery again for the same problem. The arc of motion as regards flexion/extension was found to increase by 19% while prono-supination was found to increase by 30%. There was one patient each with superficial infection, anterior interosseous nerve neuropathy and myositic ossificans while two patients had triceps rupture. Radiological examination showed that in 12 cases the trephine hole was partially obliterated while in 4 cases it was completely obliterated. This could not be correlated clinically. Patients with loose bodies seemed to do better in the post-operative phase. Ulnohumeral arthroplasty has a role in the management of the arthritic elbow as it provides pain relief in the post-operative period; however, the improvement in the range of movement is limited particularly as regards the arc of extension

Prosthetic radial head replacement is usually performed for trauma or post traumatic reconstruction. Therefore pain caused by a loose prosthesis might be incorrectly attributed to other causes. We lack reliable guidelines for diagnosing a loose radial head prosthesis that is symptomatic. Experience in Hip Arthroplasty has identified thigh pain as originating from the bone-prosthesis interface in the femoral canal, as opposed to the acetabulum or hip joint itself. The authors have recognized a similar phenomenon with radial head prostheses that has not yet been reported in the literature. Pain from a loose stem within the proximal radius may present as forearm pain. The medical records and radiographs of 14 consecutive cases (13 patients) with proximal radial forearm pain associated with a loose radial head prosthesis were reviewed retrospectively. From August 1999 to December 2006, 9 consecutive patients (10 cases) required revision surgery for painful aseptic loosening of a primary metal prosthetic radial head implant. One of the 9 patients required re-revision with a longer stem. A further 4 patients with symptomatic aseptic loosening have not yet been revised. The indication for revision surgery was painful loosening of the prosthesis within the canal of the proximal radius in 7 patients (8 cases) and pain with no evidence of loosening in 2 patients (2 cases). Various prosthetic designs had been used in the primary operations. In 12 of 14 cases the loosening was evident radiographically, but in 2 the only indication of a loose prosthesis (confirmed surgically) was proximal forearm pain. Revision or prosthetic removal eliminated the pain in 7 of 10 cases and decreased it in 1 Most of the patients who had relief of their forearm pain could tell in the first few days that the pain was gone following revision or removal of the loose radial head prosthetic component. One patient with moderate pain had an arthritic elbow and had no significant lasting relief from surgery. One patient was lost to follow-up. Follow-up averaged 27 months (range 1 to 66 months). Three of the 4 patients who had not yet undergone revision, were still awaiting revision and one did not want further surgery. In conclusion, the presence of radial sided proximal forearm pain in a patient with a radial head prosthesis is a strong indicator of symptomatic aseptic loosening. If the prosthesis has a textured surface for bone ingrowth, and was inserted without cement, we now consider this symptom to be diagnostic even in the absence of radiographic signs of loosening

Between 1994 and 2006, 83 patients (84 elbows) underwent the Outerbridge-Kashiwagi (OK) procedure by the senior author. Of these, 30 patients with over 5 years follow-up where available for review. There were 24 males and 6 females mean age 59.8 (range 34 – 81). 27 patients had primary osteoarthritis and the rest developed post-traumatic arthritis. Mean duration of symptoms was 25.5 (range 12 – 72) months. 30 patients had more than 5-year follow-up with a mean of 96 months (range 60–150) months. Their mean pre-operative flexion improved from 115° (range 90° – 150°) to 134° (range 100° – 160°) post-operatively (p< 0.001) and mean pre-operative extension deficit improved from 28° (range 10° – 50°) to 13° (range 5° – 30°) post-operatively (p< 0.001). The mean MEPS improved from 52 (range 25 – 70) pre-operatively to 84 (range 55 – 100) post-operatively (p< 0.038). The mean pre-operative DASH score improved from 63 (range 37 – 92) to 41 (range 24 – 75) postoperatively (p< 0.001). The mean pre-operative DEORS improved from 6.3 to 4.9 post-operatively (p< 0.001). Majority of the patients [22 patients (73.3%)] returned to their previous work including all 5 professional sportsmen. There were few complications -2 superficial wound infections, and numbness along ulnar nerve distribution in 1 patient. Of the 17 patients who had recurrence after 5 years, 4 patients had to undergo revision surgery (3 improved). 23 patients (76.6%) were satisfied with the results of the surgery. Conclusions: The OK procedure gives excellent to good results in 70.9% of patients at a mean of 9 years. Both flexion and extension improved significantly with very few complications with this open surgical technique. Although 17 out of 30 patients had recurrence on X ray beyond 5 years, only 4 required revision procedures.

This study reports our experience with total elbow replacement for fused elbows.

Between 1982 and 2004, 13 patients with spontaneously ankylosed elbows were treated with a linked semi-constrained non-custom total elbow implant. The mean age at operation was 54 years (24 to 80). The stiffness was a result of trauma in ten elbows, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis in one, and rheumatoid arthritis in two. The patients were followed for a mean of 12 years (2 to 26) and were evaluated clinically using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, as well as radiologically.

A mean arc from 37° of extension to 118° of flexion was achieved. Outcomes were good or excellent for seven elbows at final review. Ten patients felt better or much better after total elbow replacement. However, there was a high complication rate and re-operation was required in over half of patients. Two developed peri-operative soft-tissue breakdown requiring debridement. A muscle flap with skin grafting was used for soft-tissue cover in one. Revision was undertaken in one elbow following fracture of the ulnar component. Three patients developed a deep infection. Three elbows were manipulated under anaesthesia for post-operative stiffness. Prophylactic measures for heterotopic ossification were unsuccessful.

Total elbow replacement for the ankylosed elbow should be performed with caution. However, the outcome can be reliable in the long term and have a markedly positive impact on patient function and satisfaction. The high potential for complications must be considered. We consider total elbow replacement to be an acceptable procedure in selected patients with reasonable expectations.

Previous studies have demonstrated the benefits of arthroscopic arthrolysis in relieving pain and improving motion in arthritic elbows, but none have reported the specific functional recovery. This study aims to review the functional outcome and patient satisfaction in a series of patients who underwent arthroscopic elbow arthrolysis for intrinsic stiffness, pain and arthritis not suitable for arthroplasty. Twenty six patients who underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis over a three year period were included. All patients were manual workers or strength athletes. All had pain and stiffness secondary to primary or secondary arthritis, with or without loose bodies. Pre- and post-operative evaluation included the Elbow Functional Assessment score, patient satisfaction and return to work and sports. The mean follow up period was 22 months. Function improved significantly in 87% with overall improvement in the Elbow Functional Assessment score from a preoperative score of 48 to a postoperative score of 84 (p< 0.05). All except three patients returned to their desired level of activity by 3 months postoperatively. Pain improved in 91%, mechanical symptoms in 80%, stiffness in all except one. The arc of elbow movement improved from 106° to 124° with a mean gain in elbow extension of 13°. Mayo elbow performance index also significantly improved postoperatively. Overall, 87% patients were very satisfied with the outcome. We conclude that the arthroscopic arthrolysis improves elbow function and returns patients to their desired level of activity, as well as improving range of motion and pain in patients with intrinsic elbow stiffness and pain

This study reviews the predisposing features, the clinical, and laboratory findings at the time of diagnosis and the results of single-stage revision of prosthetic replacement of the elbow for infection.

Deep infection occurred in six of 305 (1.9%) primary total elbow replacements. The mean follow-up after revision was 6.8 years (6 months to 16 years) and the mean age at the time of revision was 62.7 years (56 to 74). All six cases with infection had rheumatoid arthritis and had received steroid therapy. The infective organism was Staphylococcus aureus. Four of the six elbows had a developed radiolucency around one component or the other. Successful single-stage exchange arthroplasty was carried out with antibiotic-loaded cement in five of the six cases. In one, the revision prosthesis had to be removed following recurrence of the infection. The functional result was good in three elbows, fair in one, poor in one and fair in the resection arthroplasty.

Aim: To determine the effectiveness of arthroscopic surgery, without excision of the radial head, in elbows with end stage arthritis of the radiocapitellar joint. Methods: Twenty-three elbows with bone-on-bone degeneration of the radio-capitellar joint, but with only minor degeneration of the humeroulnar joint, had arthroscopic surgery, with synovectomy, removal of loose bodies and excision of impinging tissues and bone. The average age was 51 years (range: 16 years to 59 years). Evaluation was by a questionnaire and the follow-up was after a minimum of one year. Results: The average follow up was 41 months (range 12 months to 83 months). Twenty-one of 22 patients reported improvements. Six patients were pain free, 12 had mild residual pain and six had significant, continuing pain. Only three patients reported residual lateral elbow pain. The average visual analogue pain score was 3.4. According to the Mayo elbow function score, there were eight excellent, seven good, six fair, and three poor outcomes. Conclusions: Satisfactory improvements in symptoms and function were obtained in arthritic elbows with arthroscopic surgery, even in the presence of severe radiocapitellar arthritis

Between 1986 and 1994, 13 patients with mobile painful arthritic elbows were treated by distraction interposition arthroplasty using fascia lata. The mean period of follow-up was 63 months. An elbow distractor/fixator was applied for three to four weeks to separate the articular surfaces and to protect the fascial graft. Nine of the 13 patients (69%) had satisfactory relief from pain; eight (62%) had an excellent or good result by the objective criteria of the Mayo Elbow Performance score. Four have required revision to total elbow arthroplasty at a mean of 30 months with good results to date. Instability of the elbow, both before and after surgery, was found to be associated with unsatisfactory results. The rate of success when the procedure was performed for inflammatory arthritis was similar to that for post-traumatic arthritis, about 67%. Eight complications occurred in six patients, all in the group with post-traumatic arthritis. Two of these required further surgical procedures such as transposition of the ulnar nerve or repair of hernia of the fascia lata. Although less reliable than prosthetic replacement, distraction interposition arthroplasty is a useful option in the treatment of young, high-demand patients with arthritis of the elbow. It is rarely indicated in the presence of generalised inflammatory arthritis, but may be of value in those patients in whom the disease is limited primarily to the elbow

Eighty elbows in 65 patients with an average age of 57 years have had two-part non-constrained Liverpool elbow arthroplasties performed since 1974. Fifty-five had rheumatoid arthritis, eight osteoarthritis or ankylosis secondary to injury, one osteochondritis dissecans and one pyknodysostosis. The average preoperative range of movement was 42 degrees to 112 degrees with 47 degrees of pronation and 42 degrees of supination. There was significant gain in the arc of movements at follow-up: 32 degrees in the extension-flexion range (average range 32 degrees to 134 degrees of flexion) and 42 degrees in forearm rotation (average pronation 69 degrees and supination 62 degrees). Before operation severe pain was the predominating symptom in 43 elbows (53.8%) but after replacement there was only moderate pain in five elbows (6.2%). The results were excellent in 42 (52.5%), good in 15 (18.7%), fair in 9 (11.3%) and unsatisfactory or poor in 14 (17.5%). Eight elbows required revision of the arthroplasty: three were post-traumatic, disorganised or osteoarthritic joints, three rheumatoid and both elbows in the patient with pyknodysostosis. Loosening of the prosthesis (particularly the humeral component) was the common factor necessitating revision. Of six rheumatoid elbows needing removal of the implant, four had deep infection, one had a dislodged humeral component as a result of injury and in one a divided olecranon had developed non-union. Rheumatoid elbows benefited more than post-traumatic arthritic elbows from the operation. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)