We systematically reviewed all the evidence published in the English language on proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) replacement, to determine its effectiveness on the function of the hand and the associated post-operative complications.

Original studies were selected if they reported clinical outcome with a minimum of one year’s follow-up. Quality was assessed using the Cowley systematic review criteria modified for finger-joint replacements. Of 319 articles identified, only five were adequately reported according to our quality criteria; there were no randomised controlled trials. PIPJ replacements had a substantial effect size on hand pain of -23.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) -27.3 to -19.1) and grip strength 1.2 (95% CI -10.7 to 13.1), and a small effect on range of movement 0.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 0.8). A dorsal approach was most successful. Post-operative loosening occurred in 10% (95% CI 3 to 30) of ceramic and 12.5% (95% CI 7 to 21) of pyrocarbon replacements. Post-operative complications occurred in 27.8% (95% CI 20 to 37).

We conclude that the effectiveness of PIPJ replacement has not been established. Small observational case studies and short-term follow-up, together with insufficient reporting of patient data, functional outcomes and complications, limit the value of current evidence.

We recommend that a defined core set of patients, surgical and outcome data for this intervention be routinely and systematically collected within the framework of a joint registry.

In light of the growing number of elderly osteopenic patients with distal humeral fractures, we discuss the history of their management and current trends. Under most circumstances operative fixation and early mobilisation is the treatment of choice, as it gives the best results. The relative indications for and results of total elbow replacement versus internal fixation are discussed.

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.

We developed a questionnaire to assess patient-reported outcome after surgery of the elbow from interviews with patients. Initially, 17 possible items with five response options were included. A prospective study of 104 patients (107 elbow operations) was carried out to analyse the underlying factor structure, dimensionality, internal and test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the questionnaire items. This was compared with the Mayo Elbow performance score clinical scale, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, and the Short-Form (SF-36) General Health Survey. In total, five questions were considered inappropriate, which resulted in the final 12-item questionnaire, which has been referred to as the Oxford elbow score. This comprises three unidimensional domains, ‘elbow function’, ‘pain’ and ‘social-psychological’; with each domain comprising four items with good measurement properties.

This new 12-item Oxford elbow score is a valid measure of the outcome of surgery of the elbow.

Over a seven-year period we treated a consecutive series of 58 patients, 20 men and 38 women with a mean age of 66 years (21 to 87) who had an acute complex anterior fracture-dislocation of the proximal humerus. Two patterns of injury are proposed for study based upon a prospective assessment of the pattern of soft-tissue and bony injury and the degree of devascularisation of the humeral head. In 23 patients, the head had retained capsular attachments and arterial back-bleeding (type-I injury), whereas in 35 patients the head was devoid of significant soft-tissue attachments with no active arterial bleeding (type-II injury).

Following treatment by open reduction and internal fixation, only two of 23 patients with type-I injuries developed radiological evidence of osteonecrosis of the humeral head, compared with four of seven patients with type-II injuries.

A policy of primary treatment by open reduction and internal fixation of type-I injuries is justified, whereas most elderly patients (aged 60 years or over) with type-II injuries are best treated by hemiarthroplasty. The best treatment for younger patients (aged under 60 years) who sustain type-II injuries is controversial and an individualised approach to their management is advocated.

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.