Aims. A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement. Methods. A real-time Delphi survey was conducted over four weeks using outcomes from a scoping review of 362 studies on elbow replacement published between January 1990 and February 2021. A total of 583 outcome descriptors were rationalized to 139 unique outcomes. The survey consisted of 139 outcomes divided into 18 domains. The readability and clarity of the survey was determined by an advisory group including a patient representative. Participants were able to view aggregated responses from other participants in real time and to revisit their responses as many times as they wished during the study period. Participants were able to propose additional items for inclusion. A Patient and Public Inclusion and Engagement (PPIE) panel considered the consensus findings. Results. A total of 45 respondents completed the survey. Nine core mandatory domains were identified: ‘return to work or normal daily role’; delivery of care was measured in the domains ‘patient satisfaction with the outcome of surgery’ and ‘would the patient have the same operation again’; ‘pain’; ‘revision’; ‘elbow function’; ‘independence in activities of daily living’; ‘health-related quality of life’; and ‘adverse events’. ‘Elbow range of motion’ was identified as important by consensus but was felt to be less relevant by the PPIE panel. The PPIE panel unanimously stated that pain should be used as the primary outcome domain. Conclusion. This study defined core domains for the clinical outcomes of elbow replacement obtained by consensus from patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Pain may be used as the primary outcome in future studies, where appropriate. Further work is required to define the instruments that should be used. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):xxx–xxx

Aims

Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and radiocapitellar arthroplasty, are rarely undertaken. This scoping review aims to outline the current research in this area to inform the development of future research.

Post-traumatic elbow stiffness is a disabling condition that remains challenging for upper limb surgeons. Open elbow arthrolysis is commonly used for the treatment of stiff elbow when conservative therapy has failed. Multiple questions commonly arise from surgeons who deal with this disease. These include whether the patient has post-traumatic stiff elbow, how to evaluate the problem, when surgery is appropriate, how to perform an excellent arthrolysis, what the optimal postoperative rehabilitation is, and how to prevent or reduce the incidence of complications. Following these questions, this review provides an update and overview of post-traumatic elbow stiffness with respect to the diagnosis, preoperative evaluation, arthrolysis strategies, postoperative rehabilitation, and prevention of complications, aiming to provide a complete diagnosis and treatment path.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:576–584.

Aims. A trial-based comparison of the use of resources, costs and quality of life outcomes of arthroscopic and open surgical management for rotator cuff tears in the United Kingdom NHS was performed using data from the United Kingdom Rotator Cuff Study (UKUFF) randomised controlled trial. Patients and Methods. Using data from 273 patients, healthcare-related use of resources, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated at 12 months and 24 months after surgery on an intention-to-treat basis with adjustment for covariates. Uncertainty about the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for arthroscopic versus open management at 24 months of follow-up was incorporated using bootstrapping. Multiple imputation methods were used to deal with missing data. Results. There were no significant differences between the arthroscopic and open groups in terms of total mean use and cost of resources or QALYs at any time post-operatively. Open management dominated arthroscopic management in 59.8% of bootstrapped cost and effect differences. The probability that arthroscopic management was cost-effective compared with open management at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained was 20.9%. Conclusion. There was no significant overall difference in the use or cost of resources or quality of life between arthroscopic and open management in the trial. There was uncertainty about which strategy was most cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1648–55