Periprosthetic joint infection represents a devastating complication after total elbow arthroplasty. Several measures can be implemented before, during, and after surgery to decrease infection rates, which exceed 5%. Debridement with antibiotics and implant retention has been reported to be successful in less than one-third of acute infections, but still plays a role. For elbows with well-fixed implants, staged retention seems to be equally successful as the more commonly performed two-stage reimplantation, both with a success rate of 70% to 80%. Permanent resection or even amputation are occasionally considered. Not uncommonly, a second-stage reimplantation requires complex reconstruction of the skeleton with allografts, and the extensor mechanism may also be deficient. Further developments are needed to improve our management of infection after elbow arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1321–1326.

Post-traumatic elbow stiffness is a disabling condition that remains challenging for upper limb surgeons. Open elbow arthrolysis is commonly used for the treatment of stiff elbow when conservative therapy has failed. Multiple questions commonly arise from surgeons who deal with this disease. These include whether the patient has post-traumatic stiff elbow, how to evaluate the problem, when surgery is appropriate, how to perform an excellent arthrolysis, what the optimal postoperative rehabilitation is, and how to prevent or reduce the incidence of complications. Following these questions, this review provides an update and overview of post-traumatic elbow stiffness with respect to the diagnosis, preoperative evaluation, arthrolysis strategies, postoperative rehabilitation, and prevention of complications, aiming to provide a complete diagnosis and treatment path.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:576–584.

Aims

We describe the use of a protocol of irrigation and debridement (I& D) with retention of the implant for the treatment of periprosthetic infection of a total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). This may be an attractive alternative to staged re-implantation.

We report our experience of staged revision surgery for the treatment of infected total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Between 1998 and 2010 a consecutive series of 33 patients (34 TEAs) underwent a first-stage procedure with the intention to proceed to second-stage procedure when the infection had been controlled. A single first-stage procedure with removal of the components and cement was undertaken for 29 TEAs (85%), followed by the insertion of antibiotic-impregnated cement beads, and five (15%) required two or more first-stage procedures. The most common organism isolated was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in 21 TEAs (62%).

A second-stage procedure was performed for 26 TEAs (76%); seven patients (seven TEAs, 21%) had a functional resection arthroplasty with antibiotic beads in situ and had no further surgery, one had a persistent discharge preventing further surgery.

There were three recurrent infections (11.5%) in those patients who underwent a second-stage procedure. The infection presented at a mean of eight months (5 to 10) post-operatively. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) in those who underwent a second stage revision without recurrent infection was 81.1 (65 to 95).

Staged revision surgery is successful in the treatment of patients with an infected TEA and is associated with a low rate of recurrent infection. However, when infection does occur, this study would suggest that it becomes apparent within ten months of the second stage procedure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1681–6.

Some surgeons are reluctant to perform a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) on both shoulders because of concerns regarding difficulty with activities of daily living post-operatively as a result of limited rotation of the shoulders. Nevertheless, we hypothesised that outcomes and patient satisfaction following bilateral RTSA would be comparable to those following unilateral RTSA. A single-surgeon RTSA registry was reviewed for patients who underwent bilateral staged RTSA with a minimum follow-up of two years. A unilateral RTSA matched control was selected for each shoulder in those patients undergoing bilateral procedures. The Constant–Murley score (CMS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Subjective Shoulder Values (SSV), visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, range of movement and strength were measured pre- and post-operatively. The mean CMS, ASES, SSV, VAS scores, strength and active forward elevation were significantly improved (all p < 0.01) following each operation in those undergoing bilateral procedures. The mean active external rotation (p = 0.63 and p = 0.19) and internal rotation (p = 0.77 and p = 0.24) were not significantly improved. The improvement in the mean ASES score after the first RTSA was greater than the improvement in its control group (p = 0.0039). The improvement in the mean CMS, ASES scores and active forward elevation was significantly less after the second RTSA than in its control group (p = 0.0244, p = 0.0183, and p = 0.0280, respectively). Pain relief and function significantly improved after each RTSA in those undergoing a bilateral procedure.

Bilateral RTSA is thus a reasonable form of treatment for patients with severe bilateral rotator cuff deficiency, although inferior results may be seen after the second procedure compared with the first.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1232–8.