Between 1982 and 1997, 403 consecutive patients (522 elbows) with rheumatoid arthritis underwent Souter-Strathclyde total elbow replacement. By the end of 2007, there had been 66 revisions for aseptic loosening in 60 patients. The mean time of follow-up was 10.6 years (0 to 25) The survival rates at five-, ten, 15 and 19 years were 96% (95%, confidence interval (CI) 95 to 98), 89% (95% CI 86 to 92), 83% (95% CI 78 to 87), and 77% (95% CI 69 to 85), respectively. The small and medium-sized short-stemmed primary humeral components had a 5.6-fold and 3.6-fold risk of revision for aseptic loosening respectively, compared to the medium-sized long-stemmed component. The small and medium-sized all-polyethylene ulnar components had respectively a 28.2-fold and 8.4-fold risk of revision for aseptic loosening, compared to the metal-backed ulnar components.

The use of retentive ulnar components was not associated with an increased risk of aseptic loosening compared to non-retentive implants.

We evaluated the survival of moulded monoblock and modular tibial components of the AGC total knee replacement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Between 1985 and 1995, 751 knees with this diagnosis were replaced at our institution. A total of 256 tibial components were of the moulded design and 495 of the modular design. The mean follow-up of the moulded subgroup was 9.6 years (0.5 to 14.7), and that of the modular group 7.0 years (0.1 to 14.7).

The groups differed significantly from each other in Larsen grade, cementing of components and patellar resurfacing, but no statistically significant difference between the survival of the components was found (Log rank test, p = 0.91). The cumulative success rate of the moulded group was 96.8% (95% confidence interval 93.6% to 98.4%) at five years and 94.4% (95% confidence interval 90.4% to 96.7%) at ten years, and of the modular group 96.2% (95% confidence interval 94% to 97.6%) and 93.6% (95% confidence interval 89.7% to 96%), respectively. Revision was required in 37 total knee replacements, the main causes were infection, pain, loosening of the tibial component and patellar problems. Survival rates for both components were satisfactory.

Aims: The aim of the present study was to compare the functional outcome between silastic Swanson and Sutter implants in metacarpophalangeal joints in a prospective and randomised of study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: The study was prospective and randomised. Thematerial comprised 53 patients (6 men, 47 women) and 58 hands; a total of 89 Swanson and 126 Sutter implants were installed. The mean follow-up time was 57 (40–80) and 55 (36–79) months, respectively. Results: Active extension was corrected similarly in both groups. In the Swanson group from median [inter-quartile rate (IQR)] 22° (8, 44) to 12° (0,20), and in the Sutter group from 19° (7, 37) to 16 (5, 25). The median active flexion decreased less in the Sutter group from 75° (69, 84) to 64° (53, 72) vs. Swanson from 83° (77, 90) to 58° (48, 64) during the follow-up, and with that respect the difference between the groups was statistically significant (p=0.01). Statistically significant difference (p=0.03) was detected in correction of ulnar deviation only in ring finger: in the Swanson group from median 25°(6°, 34°) ulnar deviation to 1°(2°radial, 9°) radial deviation and in the Sutter group from 14°(7°, 28°) to 5°(0°, 13∞) respectively. Conclusion: It appears that the Sutter implant yields at least as good functional results in the MCP replacement as the Swanson prosthesis.