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.

We compared six patients with a mean age of 70 years (49 to 80) with severe bilateral, painful glenohumeral joint destruction who underwent a single-stage bilateral total shoulder replacement, with eight patients of mean age 61 years (22 to 89) who underwent bilateral total shoulder replacement in two stages, at a mean interval of 18 months (6 to 43).

The overall function, pain and strength improved significantly in both groups. The subjective shoulder value, relative Constant score, active external rotation and the strength were improved significantly more in the single-stage group. Active elevation, abduction and overall function improved, significantly more in the single-stage group. Both the total duration of hospitalisation and the time off work per shoulder were substantially shorter in the single-stage group. The overall rate of complication was lower in the single-stage group.

Our findings indicated that single-stage bilateral total shoulder replacement yielded significantly better clinical results with shorter hospitalisation and rehabilitation than staged replacement, and was not associated with any increase in complications.

Between 1978 and 1986, 59 patients received a GSB III elbow prosthesis, six of them in both elbows. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was the underlying cause in 51 of the patients and post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) in eight. Of these, 24 patients (28 prostheses) have since died; two, both operated on bilaterally, had had their implants for more than ten years and had already been assessed for inclusion in the long-term follow-up. Two patients, each with one elbow prosthesis, have been lost to follow-up and three males who are still living (two with PTOA, one with juvenile RA) had their prosthesis removed before ten years had elapsed. The remaining 32 patients (28 RA, 4 PTOA) with 36 GSB III elbows were examined clinically and radiologically after a mean period of 13.5 years. Pain was considerably reduced in 91.6%. Mobility was increased by 37° in those with RA and by 67° in those with PTOA. There were three cases of aseptic loosening and three of deep infection. The main complication was disassembly of the prosthetic component in nine elbows (13.8%). This last group included two patients with postoperative fractures unrelated to the operative technique and one with neuropathic arthritis. Ulnar neuritis occurred in two patients. Since 87.7% of all the GSB III prostheses implanted in this period remained in situ, our results are comparable with those for hip and knee arthroplasty