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.

We retrospectively reviewed 11 consecutive patients with an infected reverse shoulder prosthesis. Patients were assessed clinically and radiologically, and standard laboratory tests were carried out. Peroperative samples showed Propionbacterium acnes in seven, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in five, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in one and Escherichia coli in one. Two multibacterial and nine monobacterial infections were seen. Post-operatively, patients were treated with intravenous cefazolin for at least three days and in all antibiotic therapy was given for at least three months. Severe pain (3 of 11) or severe limitation of function (3 of 11) are not necessarily seen. A fistula was present in eight, but function was not affected. All but one patient were considered free of infection after one-stage revision at a median follow-up of 24 months, and without antibiotic treatment for a minimum of six months. One patient had a persistent infection despite a second staged revision, but is now free of infection with a spacer. Complications included posterior dislocation in one, haematoma in one and a clavicular fracture in one. At the most recent follow-up the median post-operative Constant-Murley score was 55, 6% adjusted for age, gender and dominance.

A one-stage revision arthroplasty reduces the cost and duration of treatment. It is reliable in eradicating infection and good functional outcomes can be achieved.

Transfer of pectoralis major has evolved as the most favoured option for the management of the difficult problem of irreparable tears of subscapularis. We describe our experience with this technique in 30 patients divided into three groups. Group I comprised 11 patients with a failed procedure for instability of the shoulder, group II included eight with a failed shoulder replacement and group III, 11 with a massive tear of the rotator cuff. All underwent transfer of the sternal head of pectoralis major to restore the function of subscapularis.

At the latest follow-up pain had improved in seven of the 11 patients in groups I and III, but in only one of eight in group II. The subjective shoulder score improved in seven patients in group I, in one in group II and in six in group III. The mean Constant score improved from 40.9 points (28 to 50) in group I, 32.9 (17 to 47) in group II and 28.7 (20 to 42) in group III pre-operatively to 60.8 (28 to 89), 41.9 (24 to 73) and 52.3 (24 to 78), respectively.

Failure of the tendon transfer was highest in group II and was associated with pre-operative anterior subluxation of the humeral head. We conclude that in patients with irreparable rupture of subscapularis after shoulder replacement there is a high risk of failure of transfer of p?ctoralis major, particularly if there is pre-operative anterior subluxation of the humeral head.

While frequently discussed as a standard treatment for the management of an infected shoulder replacement, there is little information on the outcome of two-stage re-implantation.

We examined the outcome of 17 consecutive patients (19 shoulders) who were treated between 1995 and 2004 with a two-stage re-implantation for the treatment of a deep-infection after shoulder replacement. All 19 shoulders were followed for a minimum of two years or until the time of further revision surgery. The mean clinical follow-up was for 35 months (24 to 80). The mean radiological follow-up was 27 months (7 to 80). There were two excellent results, four satisfactory and 13 unsatisfactory. In 12 of the 19 shoulders (63%) infection was considered to be eradicated. The mean pain score improved from 4.2 (3 to 5 (out of 5)) to 1.8 (1 to 4). The mean elevation improved from 42° (0° to 140°) to 89° (0° to 165°), mean external rotation from 30° (0° to 90°) to 43° (0° to 90°), and mean internal rotation from the sacrum to L5. There were 14 complications.

Our study suggests that two-stage re-implantation for an infected shoulder replacement is associated with a high rate of unsatisfactory results, marginal success at eradicating infection and a high complication rate.

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 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.