We report the effectiveness of revision of total
elbow replacement by re-cementing. Between 1982 and 2004, 53 elbows
in 52 patients were treated with re-cementing of a total elbow replacement
into part or all of the existing cement mantle or into the debrided
host-bone interface, without the use of structural bone augmentation
or a custom prosthesis. The original implant revision was still
We reviewed 20 patients who had undergone a Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty after resection of a primary or metastatic tumour from the elbow or distal humerus between 1980 and 2002. Eighteen patients underwent reconstruction for palliative treatment with restoration of function after intralesional surgery and two after excision of a primary bone tumour. The mean follow-up was 30 months (1 to 192). Five patients (25%) were alive at the final follow-up; 14 (70%) had died of their disease and one of unrelated causes. Local control was achieved in 15 patients (75%). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score improved from 22 (5 to 45) to 75 points (55 to 95). Four reconstructions (20%) failed and required revision. Seven patients (35%) had early complications, the most frequent being nerve injury (25%). There were no infections or wound complications although 18 patients (90%) had radiotherapy, chemotherapy or both. The Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty provides good relief from pain and a good functional outcome after resection of tumours of the elbow. The rates of complications involving local recurrence of tumour (25%) and nerve injury (25%) are of concern.
In light of the growing number of elderly osteopenic
patients with distal humeral fractures, we discuss the history of
their management and current trends. Under most circumstances operative
fixation and early mobilisation is the treatment of choice, as it
gives the best results. The relative indications for and results
of total elbow replacement
We studied retrospectively the results of revision arthroplasty of the elbow using a linked Coonrad-Morrey implant in 23 patients (24 elbows) after a mean follow-up period of 55 months. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 19 elbows were satisfactory, nine were excellent and ten good. The median total score had improved from 35 points (20 to 75) before the primary arthroplasty to 85 points (40 to 100) at the latest follow-up. There was a marked relief of pain, but the range of movement showed no overall improvement. Two patients had a second revision because of infection and two for aseptic loosening. The estimated five-year survival rate of the prosthesis was 83.1% (95% confidence interval 61.1 to 93.3). Revision elbow arthroplasty using the Coonrad-Morrey implant provided satisfactory results but with complications occurring in 13 cases.
We examined the effects of previous resection of the radial head and synovectomy on the outcome of subsequent total elbow arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Fifteen elbows with a history of resection and synovectomy were compared with a control group of patients who had elbow arthroplasty with an implant of the same design. The mean age in both groups was 63 years. In the study group, resection of the radial head and synovectomy had been undertaken at a mean of 8.9 years before arthroplasty. The mean radiological follow-up for the 13 available patients in the study group was 5.89 years (0.3 to 11.0) and in the control group was 6.6 years (2.2 to 12.6). There were no revisions in either group. The mean Mayo elbow performance score improved from 29 to 96 in the study group, with similar improvement in the control group (28 to 87). The study group had excellent results in 13 elbows and good results in two. The control group had excellent results in seven and good results in six. Our experience indicates that previous resection of the radial head and synovectomy are not associated with an increased rate of revision following subsequent arthroplasty of the elbow. However, there was a higher rate of complication in the study group compared with the control group.
