Aims. Revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is often challenging. The aim of this study was to report on the clinical and radiological results of revision arthroplasty of the elbow with the Latitude TEA. Patients and Methods. Between 2006 and 2010 we used the Latitude TEA for revision in 18 consecutive elbows (17 patients); mean age 53 years (28 to 80); 14 women. A Kudo TEA was revised in 15 elbows and a Souter-Strathclyde TEA in three. Stability, range of movement (ROM), visual analogue score (VAS) for pain and functional scores, Elbow Functional Assessment Scale (EFAS), the Functional Rating Index of Broberg and Morrey (FRIBM) and the Modified Andrews’ Elbow Scoring System (MAESS) were assessed pre-operatively and at each post-operative follow-up visit (six, 12 months and biennially thereafter). Radiographs were analysed for loosening, fractures and dislocation. The mean follow-up was 59 months (26 to 89). Results. The ROM of the elbow did not improve significantly. The mean EFAS and MAESS scores improved significantly six months post-operatively (18.6 points, standard deviation (. sd. ) 7.7; p = 0.03 and 28.8 points, . sd . 8.6; p = 0.006, respectively) and continued to improve slightly or reached a plateau. The mean pain scores at rest (Z = -3.2, p = 0.001) and during activity (Z = -3.2, p = 0.001), and stability (Z = -3.0, p = 0.003) improved significantly six months post-operatively. Thereafter scores continued to improve slightly or a plateau was reached. There were no signs of loosening. Conclusion. Revision surgery using the Latitude TEA results in improvement of functionality, reduced pain and better stability of the elbow. Improvement of ROM of the elbow should not be expected. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1086–92

We studied, ten patients (11 elbows) who had undergone 14 allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions following failure of a previous total elbow replacement with massive structural bone loss. There were nine women and one man with a mean age of 64 years (40 to 84), who were reviewed at a mean of 75 months (24 to 213). One patient developed a deep infection after 26 months and had the allograft-prosthesis composite removed, and two patients had mild pain. The median flexion-extension arc was 100° (95% confidence interval (CI) 76° to 124°). With the exception of the patient who had the infected failure, all the patients could use their elbows comfortably without splints or braces for activities of daily living. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Index improved from 9.5 (95% CI 4.4 to 14.7) pre-operatively to 74 (95% CI 62.4 to 84.9) at final review.

Radiologically, the rate of partial resorption was similar in the humeral and ulnar allografts (three of six and four of eight, respectively; p > 0.999). The patterns of resorption, however, were different. Union at the host-bone-allograft junction was also different between the humeral and ulnar allografts (one of six and seven of eight showing union, respectively; p = 0.03).

At medium-term follow-up, allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction appears to be a useful salvage technique for failed elbow replacements with massive bone loss. The effects of allograft resorption and host-bone-allograft junctional union on the longevity of allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction, however, remain unknown, and it is our view that these patients should remain under long-term regular review.

Between 1996 and 2008, nine patients with severe post-traumatic arthritis underwent revision of a failed interposition arthroplasty of the elbow with a further interposition procedure using an allograft of tendo Achillis at a mean of 5.6 years (0.7 to 13.1) after the initial procedure. There were eight men and one woman with a mean age of 47 years (36 to 56).

The mean follow-up was 4.7 years (2 to 8). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance score improved from 49 (15 to 65) pre-operatively to 73 (55 to 95) (p = 0.04). The mean Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 26 (7 to 42). One patient was unavailable for clinical follow-up and one underwent total elbow replacement three months post-operatively. Of the remaining patients, one had an excellent, two had good, three fair and one a poor result. Subjectively, five of the nine patients were satisfied. Four continued manual labour.

Revision interposition arthroplasty is an option for young, active patients with severe post-traumatic arthritis who require both mobility and durability of the elbow.

We describe a lateral approach to the distal humerus based on initial location of the superficial branches of the radial nerve, the inferior lateral cutaneous nerve of the arm and the posterior cutaneous nerve of the forearm. In 18 upper limbs the superficial branches of the radial nerve were located in the subcutaneous tissue between the triceps and brachioradialis muscles and dissected proximally to their origin from the radial nerve, exposing the shaft of the humerus. The inferior lateral cutaneous nerve of the arm arose from the radial nerve at the lower part of the spiral groove, at a mean of 14.2 cm proximal to the lateral epicondyle. The posterior cutaneous nerve of the forearm arose from the inferior lateral cutaneous nerve at a mean of 6.9 cm (6.0 to 8.1) proximal to the lateral epicondyle and descended vertically along the dorsal aspect of the forearm. The size and constant site of emergence between the triceps and brachioradialis muscles constitute a readily identifiable landmark to explore the radial nerve and expose the humeral shaft.

The Souter-Strathclyde prosthesis was used in 52 revisions of total elbow replacements (TERs) between August 1986 and May 1997. Of these, 50, carried out in 45 patients, were prospectively followed for a mean of 53 months (14 to 139). The procedure produced reliable relief of pain, and the range of movement was preserved. There was a considerable incidence of adverse events associated with revision (30%), and 12 further procedures have been required. Nonetheless, a revision is the preferred salvage procedure for failed primary arthroplasty in the absence of sepsis

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