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 retrospectively reviewed 21 patients (22 shoulders) who presented with deep infection after surgery to the shoulder, 17 having previously undergone hemiarthroplasty and five open repair of the rotator cuff. Nine shoulders had undergone previous surgical attempts to eradicate their infection. The diagnosis of infection was based on a combination of clinical suspicion (16 shoulders), positive frozen sections (> 5 polymorphonuclear leukocytes per high-power field) at the time of revision (15 shoulders), positive intra-operative cultures (18 shoulders) or the pre-operative radiological appearances. The patients were treated by an extensive debridement, intravenous antibiotics, and conversion to a reverse shoulder prosthesis in either a single- (10 shoulders) or a two-stage (12 shoulders) procedure.

At a mean follow-up of 43 months (25 to 66) there was no evidence of recurrent infection. All outcome measures showed statistically significant improvements. Mean abduction improved from 36.1° (sd 27.8) pre-operatively to 75.7° (sd 36.0) (p < 0.0001), the mean forward flexion from 43.1° (sd 33.5) to 79.5° (sd 43.2) (p = 0.0003), and mean external rotation from 10.2° (sd 18.7) to 25.4° (sd 23.5) (p = 0.0037). There was no statistically significant difference in any outcome between the single-stage and the two-stage group.

This study reviews the predisposing features, the clinical, and laboratory findings at the time of diagnosis and the results of single-stage revision of prosthetic replacement of the elbow for infection. Deep infection occurred in six of 305 (1.9%) primary total elbow replacements. The mean follow-up after revision was 6.8 years (6 months to 16 years) and the mean age at the time of revision was 62.7 years (56 to 74). All six cases with infection had rheumatoid arthritis and had received steroid therapy. The infective organism was Staphylococcus aureus. Four of the six elbows had a developed radiolucency around one component or the other. Successful single-stage exchange arthroplasty was carried out with antibiotic-loaded cement in five of the six cases. In one, the revision prosthesis had to be removed following recurrence of the infection. The functional result was good in three elbows, fair in one, poor in one and fair in the resection arthroplasty

There have been few reports in the literature of total elbow arthroplasty extending beyond 10 to 15 years. We reviewed 40 patients (41 elbows) with a mean age of 56 years (19 to 83) who had undergone a Coonrad/Coonrad-Morrey elbow arthroplasty by one surgeon for various diagnoses between 1974 and 1994. Surgical selection excluded patients with previous elbow infection or who refused to accept a sedentary level of elbow activity postoperatively. Objective data were collected from charts, radiographs, clinical photographs and supplemented by the referring orthopaedic surgeons’ records and radiographs if health or distance prevented a patient from returning for final review. Subjective outcome was defined by patient satisfaction.

Of the 41 elbows, 21 were functional between 10 and 14 years after operation, ten between 15 and 19 years and ten between 20 and 31 years. There were 14 complications and 13 revisions, but no cases of acute infection, or permanent removal of any implant.

There are few reports in the literature of the diagnosis and treatment of the infected shoulder arthroplasty. Most deal with resection arthroplasty and two-stage exchange surgery. We present our results of one-stage exchange operation as treatment for the infected shoulder arthroplasty.

Our group comprised 16 patients (ten men, six women) with 16 infected arthroplasties. By the time of follow-up, two patients had died (mean 5.8 years), two could not be located and three had already undergone revision surgery. Nine patients were thus available for clinical examination and assessment.

The infections were largely caused by staphylococci, Propionibacterium species and streptococci. Two were early infections (within three months of surgery) and 14 were late infections. The mean follow-up was 5.8 years (13 months to 13.25 years) when the mean Constant-Murley score was 33.6 points and the mean University College of Los Angeles score 18.3 points.

Further revision was performed in three patients. One sustained a peri-prosthetic humeral fracture, another developed an acromial pseudarthrosis after transacromial surgery and the third suffered recurrent dislocations. No patient had a recurrence of infection.

A one-stage exchange procedure using antibiotic-loaded bone cement eradicated infection in all our patients and we suggest that such a procedure is at least as successful as either a resection arthroplasty or a two-stage exchange in the management of the infected shoulder arthroplasty.