Aims. The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with
Aims.
We studied, ten patients (11 elbows) who had
undergone 14 allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions following
failure of a previous total elbow replacement with massive structural
bone loss. There were nine women and one man with a mean age of
64 years (40 to 84), who were reviewed at a mean of 75 months (24
to 213). One patient developed a deep infection after 26 months
and had the allograft-prosthesis composite removed, and two patients
had mild pain. The median flexion-extension arc was 100° (95% confidence
interval (CI) 76° to 124°). With the exception of the patient who
had the infected failure, all the patients could use their elbows
comfortably without splints or braces for activities of daily living.
The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Index improved from 9.5 (95% CI
4.4 to 14.7) pre-operatively to 74 (95% CI 62.4 to 84.9) at final
review. Radiologically, the rate of partial resorption was similar in
the humeral and ulnar allografts (three of six and four of eight,
respectively; p >
0.999). The patterns of resorption, however, were
different. Union at the host-bone-allograft junction was also different
between the humeral and ulnar allografts (one of six and seven of
eight showing union, respectively; p = 0.03). At medium-term follow-up, allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction
appears to be a useful salvage technique for failed elbow replacements
with massive bone loss. The effects of allograft resorption and
host-bone-allograft junctional union on the longevity of allograft-prosthesis
composite reconstruction, however, remain unknown, and it is our
view that these patients should remain under long-term regular review.
Between 1996 and 2008, nine patients with severe post-traumatic arthritis underwent revision of a failed interposition arthroplasty of the elbow with a further interposition procedure using an allograft of tendo Achillis at a mean of 5.6 years (0.7 to 13.1) after the initial procedure. There were eight men and one woman with a mean age of 47 years (36 to 56). The mean follow-up was 4.7 years (2 to 8). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance score improved from 49 (15 to 65) pre-operatively to 73 (55 to 95) (p = 0.04). The mean Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 26 (7 to 42). One patient was unavailable for clinical follow-up and one underwent total elbow replacement three months post-operatively. Of the remaining patients, one had an excellent, two had good, three fair and one a poor result. Subjectively, five of the nine patients were satisfied. Four continued manual labour. Revision interposition arthroplasty is an option for young, active patients with severe post-traumatic arthritis who require both mobility and durability of the elbow.
We describe a lateral approach to the distal humerus based on initial location of the superficial branches of the radial nerve, the inferior lateral cutaneous nerve of the arm and the posterior cutaneous nerve of the forearm. In 18 upper limbs the superficial branches of the radial nerve were located in the subcutaneous tissue between the triceps and brachioradialis muscles and dissected proximally to their origin from the radial nerve, exposing the shaft of the humerus. The inferior lateral cutaneous nerve of the arm arose from the radial nerve at the lower part of the spiral groove, at a mean of 14.2 cm proximal to the lateral epicondyle. The posterior cutaneous nerve of the forearm arose from the inferior lateral cutaneous nerve at a mean of 6.9 cm (6.0 to 8.1) proximal to the lateral epicondyle and descended vertically along the dorsal aspect of the forearm. The size and constant site of emergence between the triceps and brachioradialis muscles constitute a readily identifiable landmark to explore the radial nerve and expose the humeral shaft.
The Souter-Strathclyde prosthesis was used in 52
Between 1986 and 1994, 13 patients with mobile painful arthritic elbows were treated by distraction interposition arthroplasty using fascia lata. The mean period of follow-up was 63 months. An elbow distractor/fixator was applied for three to four weeks to separate the articular surfaces and to protect the fascial graft. Nine of the 13 patients (69%) had satisfactory relief from pain; eight (62%) had an excellent or good result by the objective criteria of the Mayo Elbow Performance score. Four have required