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 compared wrist arthrodesis using the Mannerfelt technique in 19 or an AO-plate in 23 patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. The mean follow-up was for 76 months. Compared with the Mannerfelt fusion group, patients in the AO-plate group reported greater satisfaction with their wrist function (74% Both methods relieve pain and improve function. Overall, the activities of daily living scores and the patients’ subjective assessment of outcome tended to be higher in the AO-plate group than in the Mannerfelt fusion group, although the difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, although more postoperative complications occurred in the AO-plate group, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.
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.
