The outcome of an anatomical shoulder replacement depends on an intact rotator cuff. In 1981 Grammont designed a novel large-head reverse shoulder replacement for patients with cuff deficiency. Such has been the success of this replacement that it has led to a rapid expansion of the indications. We performed a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the functional outcome of each indication for the reverse shoulder replacement. Secondary outcome measures of range of movement, pain scores and complication rates are also presented.

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.

There are no long-term published results on the survival of a third-generation cemented total shoulder replacement. We describe a clinical and radiological study of the Aequalis total shoulder replacement for a minimum of ten years. Between September 1996 and May 1998, 39 consecutive patients underwent a primary cemented total shoulder replacement using this prosthesis. Data were collected prospectively on all patients each year, for a minimum of ten years, or until death or failure of the prosthesis. At a follow-up of at least ten years, 12 patients had died with the prosthesis intact and two had emigrated, leaving 25 available for clinical review. Of these, 13 had rheumatoid arthritis and 12 osteoarthritis. One refused radiological review leaving 24 with fresh radiographs.

Survivorship at ten years was 100% for the humeral component and 92% for the glenoid component. The incidence of lucent lines was low. No humeral component was thought to be at risk and only two glenoid components. The osteoarthritic group gained a mean 65° in forward flexion and their Constant score improved by a mean 41.4 points (13 to 55). The rheumatoid group gained a mean of 24° in flexion and their Constant score improved by 29.4 points. This difference may have been due to failure of the rotator cuff in 75% of the patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Thus a third-generation total shoulder replacement gives an excellent result in patients with osteoarthritis and an intact rotator cuff. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have a 75% risk of failure of the rotator cuff at ten years.

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 have undertaken a prospective clinical and radiological analysis of 124 shoulder arthroplasties (113 patients) carried out for osteoarthritis. The clinical results showed improvement in the absolute Constant score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 22 and 43, respectively. Both were statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the scores after hemiarthroplasty and total arthroplasty in those patients with an intact rotator cuff.

When revision was used as the end-point for survival at ten years, survival of 86%, or 90% if glenoid components made of Hylamer sterilised in air were omitted, was obtained in primary osteoarthritis. The most common cause for revision in the hemiarthroplasty group was glenoid pain at a mean of 1.5 years; in the total arthroplasty group it was loosening of the glenoid at a mean of 4.5 years. Analysis of pre-operative factors showed that the risk of gross loosening of the glenoid increased threefold when there was evidence of erosion of the glenoid at operation. Shoulder arthroplasty should not be delayed once symptomatic osteoarthritis has been established and should be undertaken before failure of the cuff or erosion of the glenoid are present.

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 present the outcome of 47 Souter-Strathclyde replacements of the elbow with a mean follow-up of 82 months (12 to 129). The clinical results were assessed using a condition-specific outcome measure. The mean total score (maximum 100) before the operation was 47.21 and improved to 79.92 (p < 0.001). The mean pain score (maximum 50) improved from 21.41 to 46.70 (p < 0.001) and the mean functional component of the score (maximum 30) from 11.19 to 18.65 (p < 0.001). There was negligible change in the score for the range of movement although a significant improvement in mean flexion from 124° to 136° was noted (p < 0.001).

Revision surgery was required in four patients, for dislocation, wound dehiscence and early infection in one, late infection in two and aseptic loosening in one. The cumulative survival was 75% at nine years for all causes of failure and 97% at ten years for aseptic loosening alone. Our study demonstrates the value of the Souter-Strathclyde total elbow arthroplasty in providing relief from pain and functional improvement in rheumatoid patients.