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.

Between September 1993 and September 1996, we performed 34 Kudo 5 total elbow replacements in 31 rheumatoid patients. All 22 surviving patients were reviewed at a mean of 11.9 years (10 to 14). Their mean age was 56 years (37 to 78) at the time of operation. All had Larsen grade IV or V rheumatoid changes on X-ray. Nine (three bilateral replacements and six unilateral) had died from unrelated causes. One who had died before ten years underwent revision for dislocation.

Of the 22 total elbow replacements reviewed six had required revision, four for aseptic loosening (one humeral and three ulnar) and two for infection. Post-operatively, one patient had neuropraxia of the ulnar nerve and one of the radial nerve. Two patients had valgus tilting of the ulnar component.

With revision as the endpoint, the mean survival time for the prosthesis was 11.3 years (95% confidence interval (10 to 13) and the estimated survival of the prosthesis at 12 years according to Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was 74% (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.91).

Of the 16 surviving implants, ten were free from pain, four had mild pain and two moderate. The mean arc of flexion/extension of the elbow was 106° (65° to 130°) with pronation/supination of 90° (30° to 150°) with the joint at 90° of flexion. The mean Mayo elbow performance score was 82 (60 to 100) with five excellent, ten good and one fair result.

Good long-term results can be expected using the Kudo 5 total elbow replacement in patients with rheumatoid disease, with a low incidence of loosening of the components.

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 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.