Periprosthetic joint infection represents a devastating complication after total elbow arthroplasty. Several measures can be implemented before, during, and after surgery to decrease infection rates, which exceed 5%. Debridement with antibiotics and implant retention has been reported to be successful in less than one-third of acute infections, but still plays a role. For elbows with well-fixed implants, staged retention seems to be equally successful as the more commonly performed two-stage reimplantation, both with a success rate of 70% to 80%. Permanent resection or even amputation are occasionally considered. Not uncommonly, a second-stage reimplantation requires complex reconstruction of the skeleton with allografts, and the extensor mechanism may also be deficient. Further developments are needed to improve our management of infection after elbow arthroplasty. Cite this article:
In patients with a failed radial head arthroplasty (RHA), simple removal of the implant is an option. However, there is little information in the literature about the outcome of this procedure. The aim of this study was to review the mid-term clinical and radiological results, and the rate of complications and removal of the implant, in patients whose initial RHA was undertaken acutely for trauma involving the elbow. A total of 11 patients in whom removal of a RHA without reimplantation was undertaken as a revision procedure were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 8.4 years (6 to 11). The range of motion (ROM) and stability of the elbow were recorded. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The functional outcome was assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH). Radiological examination included the assessment of heterotopic ossification (HO), implant loosening, capitellar erosion, overlengthening, and osteoarthritis. Complications and the rate of further surgery were also recorded.Aims
Methods
Some surgeons are reluctant to perform a reverse
total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) on both shoulders because of concerns
regarding difficulty with activities of daily living post-operatively
as a result of limited rotation of the shoulders. Nevertheless,
we hypothesised that outcomes and patient satisfaction following
bilateral RTSA would be comparable to those following unilateral
RTSA. A single-surgeon RTSA registry was reviewed for patients who underwent
bilateral staged RTSA with a minimum follow-up of two years. A unilateral
RTSA matched control was selected for each shoulder in those patients
undergoing bilateral procedures. The Constant–Murley score (CMS), American
Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Subjective Shoulder Values
(SSV), visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, range of movement and
strength were measured pre- and post-operatively. The mean CMS,
ASES, SSV, VAS scores, strength and active forward elevation were
significantly improved
(all p <
0.01) following each operation in those undergoing bilateral
procedures. The mean active external rotation (p = 0.63 and p =
0.19) and internal rotation (p = 0.77 and p = 0.24) were not significantly
improved. The improvement in the mean ASES score after the first
RTSA was greater than the improvement in its control group (p =
0.0039). The improvement in the mean CMS, ASES scores and active
forward elevation was significantly less after the second RTSA than
in its control group (p = 0.0244, p = 0.0183, and p = 0.0280, respectively).
Pain relief and function significantly improved after each RTSA
in those undergoing a bilateral procedure. Bilateral RTSA is thus a reasonable form of treatment for patients
with severe bilateral rotator cuff deficiency, although inferior
results may be seen after the second procedure compared with the
first. Cite this article: