We assessed the short- to mid-term survival of metallic press-fit radial head prostheses in patients with radial head fractures and acute traumatic instability of the elbow.

The medical records of 42 patients (16 males, 26 females) with a mean age of 56 years (23 to 85) with acute unstable elbow injuries, including a fracture of the radial head requiring metallic replacement of the radial head, were reviewed retrospectively. Survival of the prosthesis was assessed from the radiographs of 37 patients after a mean follow-up of 50 months (12 to 107). The functional results of 31 patients were assessed using range-of-movement, Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and the RAND 36-item health survey.

At the most recent follow-up 25 prostheses were still well fixed, nine had been removed because of loosening, and three remained implanted but were loose. The mean time from implantation to loosening was 11 months (2 to 24). Radiolucent lines that developed around the prosthesis before removal were mild in three patients, moderate in one and severe in five. Range of movement parameters and mass grip strength were significantly lower in the affected elbow than in the unaffected side. The mean MEPS score was 86 (40 to 100) and the mean DASH score was 23 (0 to 81). According to RAND-36 scores, patients had more pain and lower physical function scores than normal population values.

Loosening of press-fit radial head prostheses is common, occurs early, often leads to severe osteolysis of the proximal radius, and commonly requires removal of the prosthesis.

In a prospective study between 2000 and 2005, 22 patients with primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder had a total shoulder arthroplasty with a standard five-pegged glenoid component, 12 with non-offset humeral head and ten with offset humeral head components. Over a period of 24 months the relative movement of the glenoid component with respect to the scapula was measured using radiostereometric analysis.

Nine glenoids needed reaming for erosion. There was a significant increase in rotation about all three axes with time (p < 0.001), the largest occurring about the longitudinal axis (anteversion-retroversion), with mean values of 3.8° and 1.9° for the non-offset and offset humeral head eroded subgroups, respectively. There was also a significant difference in rotation about the anteversion-retroversion axis (p = 0.01) and the varus-valgus (p < 0.001) z-axis between the two groups. The offset humeral head group reached a plateau at early follow-up with rotation about the z-axis, whereas the mean of the non-offset humeral head group at 24 months was three times greater than that of the offset group accounting for the highly significant difference between them.

The outcome of an anatomical shoulder replacement depends on an intact rotator cuff. In 1981 Grammont designed a novel large-head reverse shoulder replacement for patients with cuff deficiency. Such has been the success of this replacement that it has led to a rapid expansion of the indications. We performed a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the functional outcome of each indication for the reverse shoulder replacement. Secondary outcome measures of range of movement, pain scores and complication rates are also presented.

Total shoulder replacement is a successful procedure for degenerative or some inflammatory diseases of the shoulder. However, fixation of the glenoid seems to be the main weakness with a high rate of loosening. The results using all-polyethylene components have been better than those using metal-backed components. We describe our experience with 35 consecutive total shoulder replacements using a new metal-backed glenoid component with a mean follow-up of 75.4 months (48 to 154).

Our implant differs from others because of its mechanism of fixation. It has a convex metal-backed bone interface and the main stabilising factor is a large hollow central peg. The patients were evaulated with standard radiographs and with the Constant Score, the Simple Shoulder Test and a visual analogue scale. All the scores improved and there was no loosening, no polyethylene-glenoid disassembly and no other implant-related complications.

We conclude that a metal-backed glenoid component is a good option in total shoulder replacement with no worse results than of those using a cemented all-polyethylene prosthesis.

There are no long-term published results on the survival of a third-generation cemented total shoulder replacement. We describe a clinical and radiological study of the Aequalis total shoulder replacement for a minimum of ten years. Between September 1996 and May 1998, 39 consecutive patients underwent a primary cemented total shoulder replacement using this prosthesis. Data were collected prospectively on all patients each year, for a minimum of ten years, or until death or failure of the prosthesis. At a follow-up of at least ten years, 12 patients had died with the prosthesis intact and two had emigrated, leaving 25 available for clinical review. Of these, 13 had rheumatoid arthritis and 12 osteoarthritis. One refused radiological review leaving 24 with fresh radiographs.

Survivorship at ten years was 100% for the humeral component and 92% for the glenoid component. The incidence of lucent lines was low. No humeral component was thought to be at risk and only two glenoid components. The osteoarthritic group gained a mean 65° in forward flexion and their Constant score improved by a mean 41.4 points (13 to 55). The rheumatoid group gained a mean of 24° in flexion and their Constant score improved by 29.4 points. This difference may have been due to failure of the rotator cuff in 75% of the patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Thus a third-generation total shoulder replacement gives an excellent result in patients with osteoarthritis and an intact rotator cuff. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have a 75% risk of failure of the rotator cuff at ten years.

Surgical access to the head of the radius is usually performed through a lateral approach. We present an alternative technique through a modified posterior approach which was developed following dissections of 22 human cadavers. An osteotomy of the supinator tuberosity was performed and reflected as a single unit with the attached annular ligament. Excellent exposure of the head of the radius was achieved, replacement of the head was undertaken and the osteotomy site repaired. The elbows were stable and had a full range of movement. The approach was then carried out on 13 patients for elective replacement of the head and was found to be safe and reproducible. In the patient group all osteotomies united, the elbows were stable and had an improved range of supination and pronation. There was no change in flexion and extension of the elbow. Complications included a haematoma and a reflex sympathetic dystrophy.

The modified posterior approach provides excellent access to the head and neck of the radius, gives good stability of the elbow and allows early mobilisation of the joint.

There are theoretical and practical advantages to modular rather than monoblock designs of prostheses for shoulder arthroplasty, but there are no reported studies which specifically compare the clinical and radiological results of their use. We have compared the results of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis using both types of implant. The monoblock design was used between 1992 and 1995 and the modular design after 1995. Both had cemented all-polyethylene glenoids, the monoblock with matched and the modular with mismatched radii of curvature. There were 34 consecutive shoulders in each group with a mean follow-up of 6.1 years in the first and 5.2 years in the second.

There were no significant differences in improvement of pain scores, active elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, patient satisfaction, or the Neer ratings between the two groups. Two of 28 glenoid components in the first group and six of 30 in the second met the criteria for being radiologically at risk for loosening (p = 0.25). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome or radiological changes between the first- and second-generation designs of implant for shoulder arthroplasty.