This is a retrospective review of the results of the Acclaim total elbow replacement in 11 older patients aged ≥ 65 years with primary osteoarthritis of the elbow, with a mean follow-up of 57.6 months (30 to 86.4).

Significant reductions in pain and improvement in range of movement and function were recorded. Radiological review revealed two patients with 1 mm lucencies in a single zone, and one patient with 1 mm lucencies in two zones. No components required revision. There were no deep infections, dislocations or mechanical failures. Complications included one intra-operative medial condylar fracture and one post-operative transient ulnar neuropathy, which resolved.

This study demonstrates that the Acclaim prosthesis provides good symptomatic relief and improvement of function in patients with primary osteoarthritis, with low rates of loosening or other complications. This prosthesis can therefore be considered for patients aged ≥ 65 years with primary osteoarthritis of the elbow.

The Acclaim total elbow replacement is a modular system which allows implantation in both unlinked and linked modes. The results of the use of this implant in primary total elbow replacement in 36 patients, operated on between July 2000 and August 2002, are presented at a mean follow-up of 36 months (24 to 49). Only one patient did not have good relief of pain, but all had improved movement and function.

No implant showed clinical or radiological loosening, although one had a lucent area in three of seven humeral zones. The short-term results of the Acclaim total elbow replacement are encouraging. However, 11 patients (30.5%) suffered an intra-operative fracture of the humeral condyle. This did not affect the outcome, or the requirement for further surgery, except in one case where the fracture failed to unite. This problem has hopefully been addressed by redesigning the humeral resection guide. Other complications included three cases of ulnar neuropathy (8.3%) and one of deep infection (2.8%).

We identified ten patients who underwent arthroscopic revision of anterior shoulder stabilisation between 1999 and 2005. Their results were compared with 15 patients, matched for age and gender, who had a primary arthroscopic stabilisation during the same period.

At a mean follow-up of 37 and 36 months, respectively, the scores for pain and shoulder function improved significantly between the pre-operative and follow-up visits in both groups (p = 0.002), with no significant difference between them (p = 0.4). The UCLA and Rowe shoulder scores improved significantly (p = 0.004 and p = 0.002, respectively), with no statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.6). Kaplan-Meier analysis for time to recurrent instability showed no differences between the groups (p = 0.2).

These results suggest that arthroscopic revision anterior shoulder stabilisation is as reliable as primary arthroscopic stabilisation for patients who have had previous open surgery for recurrent anterior instability.

We retrospectively compared wrist arthrodesis using the Mannerfelt technique in 19 or an AO-plate in 23 patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. The mean follow-up was for 76 months.

Compared with the Mannerfelt fusion group, patients in the AO-plate group reported greater satisfaction with their wrist function (74% vs 37%, p = 0.015). Complications were reported in six wrists in the AO-plate group and two wrists in the Mannerfelt fusion group (p = 0.258). At final follow-up, 95% of patients (41) reported either no pain or only mild pain. There was improvement in flexion of the finger joints in both groups but no significant improvement in the extension lag in either group.

Both methods relieve pain and improve function. Overall, the activities of daily living scores and the patients’ subjective assessment of outcome tended to be higher in the AO-plate group than in the Mannerfelt fusion group, although the difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, although more postoperative complications occurred in the AO-plate group, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.

We have undertaken a prospective clinical and radiological analysis of 124 shoulder arthroplasties (113 patients) carried out for osteoarthritis. The clinical results showed improvement in the absolute Constant score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 22 and 43, respectively. Both were statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the scores after hemiarthroplasty and total arthroplasty in those patients with an intact rotator cuff.

When revision was used as the end-point for survival at ten years, survival of 86%, or 90% if glenoid components made of Hylamer sterilised in air were omitted, was obtained in primary osteoarthritis. The most common cause for revision in the hemiarthroplasty group was glenoid pain at a mean of 1.5 years; in the total arthroplasty group it was loosening of the glenoid at a mean of 4.5 years. Analysis of pre-operative factors showed that the risk of gross loosening of the glenoid increased threefold when there was evidence of erosion of the glenoid at operation. Shoulder arthroplasty should not be delayed once symptomatic osteoarthritis has been established and should be undertaken before failure of the cuff or erosion of the glenoid are present.