Between 1986 and 1994, 13 patients with mobile painful arthritic elbows were treated by distraction interposition arthroplasty using fascia lata. The mean period of follow-up was 63 months. An elbow distractor/fixator was applied for three to four weeks to separate the articular surfaces and to protect the fascial graft. Nine of the 13 patients (69%) had satisfactory relief from pain; eight (62%) had an excellent or good result by the objective criteria of the Mayo Elbow Performance score. Four have required revision to total elbow arthroplasty at a mean of 30 months with good results to date. Instability of the elbow, both before and after surgery, was found to be associated with unsatisfactory results. The rate of success when the procedure was performed for inflammatory arthritis was similar to that for post-traumatic arthritis, about 67%. Eight complications occurred in six patients, all in the group with post-traumatic arthritis. Two of these required further surgical procedures such as transposition of the ulnar nerve or repair of hernia of the fascia lata. Although less reliable than prosthetic replacement, distraction interposition arthroplasty is a useful option in the treatment of young, high-demand patients with arthritis of the elbow. It is rarely indicated in the presence of generalised inflammatory arthritis, but may be of value in those patients in whom the disease is limited primarily to the elbow

This study reports our experience with total elbow replacement for fused elbows.

Between 1982 and 2004, 13 patients with spontaneously ankylosed elbows were treated with a linked semi-constrained non-custom total elbow implant. The mean age at operation was 54 years (24 to 80). The stiffness was a result of trauma in ten elbows, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis in one, and rheumatoid arthritis in two. The patients were followed for a mean of 12 years (2 to 26) and were evaluated clinically using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, as well as radiologically.

A mean arc from 37° of extension to 118° of flexion was achieved. Outcomes were good or excellent for seven elbows at final review. Ten patients felt better or much better after total elbow replacement. However, there was a high complication rate and re-operation was required in over half of patients. Two developed peri-operative soft-tissue breakdown requiring debridement. A muscle flap with skin grafting was used for soft-tissue cover in one. Revision was undertaken in one elbow following fracture of the ulnar component. Three patients developed a deep infection. Three elbows were manipulated under anaesthesia for post-operative stiffness. Prophylactic measures for heterotopic ossification were unsuccessful.

Total elbow replacement for the ankylosed elbow should be performed with caution. However, the outcome can be reliable in the long term and have a markedly positive impact on patient function and satisfaction. The high potential for complications must be considered. We consider total elbow replacement to be an acceptable procedure in selected patients with reasonable expectations.

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.