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 in situ and functional in 42 of 53 elbows (79%) at a mean of 94.5 months (26 to 266) after surgery. In 31 of these 42 elbows (74%) the Mayo Elbow Performance Score was good or excellent. Overall, of the 53 elbows, 18 (34%) required re-operation, ten (19%) for loosening. A classification system was developed to identify those not suitable for revision by this technique, and using this we have showed that successful re-implantation is statistically correlated to properly addressing the bone deficiency for both the humeral (p = 0.005) and the ulnar (p = 0.039) components.

There is little information about the management of peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus after total shoulder replacement (TSR). This is a retrospective review of 22 patients who underwent a revision of their original shoulder replacement for peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus with bone loss and/or loose components. There were 20 women and two men with a mean age of 75 years (61 to 90) and a mean follow-up 42 months (12 to 91): 16 of these had undergone a previous revision TSR. Of the 22 patients, 12 were treated with a long-stemmed humeral component that bypassed the fracture. All their fractures united after a mean of 27 weeks (13 to 94). Eight patients underwent resection of the proximal humerus with endoprosthetic replacement to the level of the fracture. Two patients were managed with a clam-shell prosthesis that retained the original components. The mean Oxford shoulder score (OSS) of the original TSRs before peri-prosthetic fracture was 33 (14 to 48). The mean OSS after revision for fracture was 25 (9 to 31). Kaplan-Meier survival using re-intervention for any reason as the endpoint was 91% (95% confidence interval (CI) 68 to 98) and 60% (95% CI 30 to 80) at one and five years, respectively.

There were two revisions for dislocation of the humeral head, one open reduction for modular humeral component dissociation, one internal fixation for nonunion, one trimming of a prominent screw and one re-cementation for aseptic loosening complicated by infection, ultimately requiring excision arthroplasty. Two patients sustained nerve palsies.

Revision TSR after a peri-prosthetic humeral fracture associated with bone loss and/or loose components is a salvage procedure that can provide a stable platform for elbow and hand function. Good rates of union can be achieved using a stem that bypasses the fracture. There is a high rate of complications and function is not as good as with the original replacement.