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

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.

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.

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)