A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement. A real-time Delphi survey was conducted over four weeks using outcomes from a scoping review of 362 studies on elbow replacement published between January 1990 and February 2021. A total of 583 outcome descriptors were rationalized to 139 unique outcomes. The survey consisted of 139 outcomes divided into 18 domains. The readability and clarity of the survey was determined by an advisory group including a patient representative. Participants were able to view aggregated responses from other participants in real time and to revisit their responses as many times as they wished during the study period. Participants were able to propose additional items for inclusion. A Patient and Public Inclusion and Engagement (PPIE) panel considered the consensus findings.Aims
Methods
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
The June 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup360 looks at: Proximal humerus fractures: what does the literature say now?; Infection risk of steroid injections and subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Surgical versus non-surgical management of humeral shaft fractures; Core outcome set needed for elbow arthroplasty; Minimally invasive approaches to locating radial nerve in the posterior humeral approach; Predictors of bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability; Does the addition of motor control or strengthening exercises improve rotator cuff-related shoulder pain?; Terminology and diagnostic criteria used in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.
Aims. Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and
Aims. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of two radiocapitellar prostheses in a large case series followed prospectively, with medium-term follow-up. Patients and Methods. A total of 31 patients with a mean age of 54 years (27 to 73) were analyzed; nine had primary osteoarthritis (OA) and 17 had post-traumatic OA, three had capitellar osteonecrosis, and two had a fracture. Overall, 17 Lateral Resurfacing Elbow (LRE) and 14 Uni-Elbow Radio-Capitellum Implant (UNI-E) arthroplasties were performed. Pre- and postoperative assessment involved the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH) score, and the modified American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons (m-ASES) score. Results. The mean follow-up was 6.8 years (3.8 to 11.5). The mean MEPS, m-ASES, and Q-DASH scores improved significantly by 50 (p < 0.001), 55 (p < 0.001), and 54 points (p < 0.001), respectively, with no differences being detected between the implants. Preoperative pronation and supination were worse in patients in whom the UNI-E was used. Two patients with the UNI-E implant had asymptomatic evidence of gross loosening. Conclusion.
The aim of this study was to report the long-term outcome and
implant survival of the lateral resurfacing elbow (LRE) arthroplasty
in the treatment of elbow arthritis. We reviewed a consecutive series of 27 patients (30 elbows) who
underwent LRE arthroplasty between December 2005 and January 2008.
There were 15 women and 12 men, with a mean age of 61 years (25
to 82). The diagnosis was primary hypotrophic osteoarthritis (OA)
in 12 patients (14 elbows), post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA)
in five (five elbows) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in ten patients
(11 elbows). The mean clinical outcome scores including the Mayo
Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the American Shoulder and Elbow
Surgeons elbow score (ASES-e), the mean range of movement and the
radiological outcome were recorded at three, six and 12 months and
at a mean final follow-up of 8.3 years (7.3 to 9.4). A one sample Aim
Patients and Methods
There is little information available at present regarding the mechanisms of failure of modern metallic radial head implants. Between 1998 and 2008, 44 consecutive patients (47 elbows) underwent removal of a failed metallic radial head replacement. In 13 patients (13 elbows) the initial operation had been undertaken within one week of a fracture of the radial head, at one to six weeks in seven patients (seven elbows) and more than six weeks (mean of 2.5 years (2 to 65 months)) in 22 patients (25 elbows). In the remaining two elbows the replacement was inserted for non-traumatic reasons. The most common indication for further surgery was painful loosening (31 elbows). Revision was undertaken for stiffness in 18 elbows, instability in nine, and deep infection in two. There were signs of over-lengthening of the radius in 11 elbows. Degenerative changes were found in all but one. Only three loose implants had been fixed with cement. Instability was not identified in any of the bipolar implants.
