Aims. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of two radiocapitellar prostheses in a large case series followed prospectively, with medium-term follow-up. Patients and Methods. A total of 31 patients with a mean age of 54 years (27 to 73) were analyzed; nine had primary osteoarthritis (OA) and 17 had post-traumatic OA, three had capitellar osteonecrosis, and two had a fracture. Overall, 17 Lateral Resurfacing Elbow (LRE) and 14 Uni-Elbow Radio-Capitellum Implant (UNI-E) arthroplasties were performed. Pre- and postoperative assessment involved the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH) score, and the modified American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons (m-ASES) score. Results. The mean follow-up was 6.8 years (3.8 to 11.5). The mean MEPS, m-ASES, and Q-DASH scores improved significantly by 50 (p < 0.001), 55 (p < 0.001), and 54 points (p < 0.001), respectively, with no differences being detected between the implants. Preoperative pronation and supination were worse in patients in whom the UNI-E was used. Two patients with the UNI-E implant had asymptomatic evidence of gross loosening. Conclusion. Radiocapitellar arthroplasty yielded a significant improvement in elbow function at a mean follow-up of 6.8 years, with a high implant survival rate when the LRE was used in patients with primary or post-traumatic OA, without radial head deformity, and when the UNI-E was used in patients in whom radial head excision was indicated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1362–1369

Aims. Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and radiocapitellar arthroplasty, are rarely undertaken. This scoping review aims to outline the current research in this area to inform the development of future research. Methods. A scoping review was undertaken adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries, limited to studies published between 1 January 1990 and 7 February 2021. Endnote software was used for screening and selection, and included randomized trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, and case series of ten or more patients reporting the clinical outcomes of elbow arthroplasty. The results are presented as the number of types of studies, sample size, length of follow-up, clinical outcome domains and instruments used, sources of funding, and a narrative review. Results. A total of 362 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of total elbow arthroplasty (246; 68%), followed by radial head arthroplasty (100; 28%), distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (11; 3%), and radiocapitellar arthroplasty (5; 1%). Most were retrospective (326; 90%) and observational (315; 87%). The median sample size for all types of implant across all studies was 36 (interquartile range (IQR) 21 to 75). The median length of follow-up for all studies was 56 months (IQR 36 to 81). A total of 583 unique outcome descriptors were used and were categorized into 18 domains. A total of 105 instruments were used to measure 39 outcomes. Conclusion. We found that most of the literature dealing with elbow arthroplasty consists of retrospective observational studies with small sample sizes and short follow-up. Many outcomes have been used with many different instruments for their measurement, indicating a need to define a core set of outcomes and instruments for future research in this area. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1148–1155

Aims

A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement.

Aims

In patients with a failed radial head arthroplasty (RHA), simple removal of the implant is an option. However, there is little information in the literature about the outcome of this procedure. The aim of this study was to review the mid-term clinical and radiological results, and the rate of complications and removal of the implant, in patients whose initial RHA was undertaken acutely for trauma involving the elbow.

The June 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Proximal humerus fractures: what does the literature say now?; Infection risk of steroid injections and subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Surgical versus non-surgical management of humeral shaft fractures; Core outcome set needed for elbow arthroplasty; Minimally invasive approaches to locating radial nerve in the posterior humeral approach; Predictors of bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability; Does the addition of motor control or strengthening exercises improve rotator cuff-related shoulder pain?; Terminology and diagnostic criteria used in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

There is little information available at present regarding the mechanisms of failure of modern metallic radial head implants. Between 1998 and 2008, 44 consecutive patients (47 elbows) underwent removal of a failed metallic radial head replacement. In 13 patients (13 elbows) the initial operation had been undertaken within one week of a fracture of the radial head, at one to six weeks in seven patients (seven elbows) and more than six weeks (mean of 2.5 years (2 to 65 months)) in 22 patients (25 elbows). In the remaining two elbows the replacement was inserted for non-traumatic reasons. The most common indication for further surgery was painful loosening (31 elbows). Revision was undertaken for stiffness in 18 elbows, instability in nine, and deep infection in two. There were signs of over-lengthening of the radius in 11 elbows. Degenerative changes were found in all but one. Only three loose implants had been fixed with cement. Instability was not identified in any of the bipolar implants.