The Acclaim total elbow replacement is a modular system which allows implantation in both unlinked and linked modes. The results of the use of this implant in primary total elbow replacement in 36 patients, operated on between July 2000 and August 2002, are presented at a mean follow-up of 36 months (24 to 49). Only one patient did not have good relief of pain, but all had improved movement and function.

No implant showed clinical or radiological loosening, although one had a lucent area in three of seven humeral zones. The short-term results of the Acclaim total elbow replacement are encouraging. However, 11 patients (30.5%) suffered an intra-operative fracture of the humeral condyle. This did not affect the outcome, or the requirement for further surgery, except in one case where the fracture failed to unite. This problem has hopefully been addressed by redesigning the humeral resection guide. Other complications included three cases of ulnar neuropathy (8.3%) and one of deep infection (2.8%).

There are theoretical and practical advantages to modular rather than monoblock designs of prostheses for shoulder arthroplasty, but there are no reported studies which specifically compare the clinical and radiological results of their use. We have compared the results of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis using both types of implant. The monoblock design was used between 1992 and 1995 and the modular design after 1995. Both had cemented all-polyethylene glenoids, the monoblock with matched and the modular with mismatched radii of curvature. There were 34 consecutive shoulders in each group with a mean follow-up of 6.1 years in the first and 5.2 years in the second.

There were no significant differences in improvement of pain scores, active elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, patient satisfaction, or the Neer ratings between the two groups. Two of 28 glenoid components in the first group and six of 30 in the second met the criteria for being radiologically at risk for loosening (p = 0.25). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome or radiological changes between the first- and second-generation designs of implant for shoulder arthroplasty.