The June 2013 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether suture anchors are still the gold standard; infection and revision elbow arthroplasty; the variable success of elbow replacements; sliding knots; neurologic cuff pain and the suprascapular nerve; lies, damn lies and statistics; osteoarthritis; and one- or two-stage treatment for the infected shoulder revision.

Between January 2000 and December 2007, 31 patients 90 years of age or older underwent total hip replacement at our hospital. Their data were collected prospectively. The rate of major medical complications was 9%. The surgical re-operation rate was 3%. The requirement for blood transfusion was 71% which was much higher than for younger patients. The 30-day, one-year and current mortality figures were 6.4% (2 of 31), 9.6% (3 of 31) and 55% (17 of 31), respectively, with a mean follow-up for the 14 surviving patients of six years. Cox’s regression analysis revealed no significant independent predictors of mortality. Only 52% of patients returned immediately to their normal abode, with 45% requiring a prolonged period of rehabilitation.

This is the first series to assess survival five years after total hip replacement for patients in their 90th year and beyond. Hip replacement in the extreme elderly should not be discounted on the grounds of age alone, although the complication rate exceeds that for younger patients. It can be anticipated that almost half of the patients will survive five years after surgery.

Primary arthroplasty may be denied to very elderly patients based upon the perceived outcome and risks associated with surgery. This prospective study compared the outcome, complications, and mortality of total hip (TKR) and total knee replacement (TKR) in a prospectively selected group of patients aged ≥ 80 years with that of a control group aged between 65 and 74 years. There were 171 and 495 THRs and 185 and 492 TKRs performed in the older and control groups, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the mean improvement of Oxford hip and knee scores between the groups at 12 months (0.98, (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.66 to 2.95), p = 0.34 and 1.15 (95% CI −0.65 to 2.94), p = 0.16, respectively). The control group had a significantly (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04, respectively) greater improvement in the physical well being component of their SF-12 score, but the older group was more satisfied with their THR (p = 0.047). The older group had a longer hospital stay for both THR (5.9 versus 9.0 days, p < 0.0001) and TKR (6.2 versus 8.3 days, p < 0.0001). The rates of post-operative complications and mortality were increased in the older group.

We describe the results of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty using the mark III prosthesis in patients over 80 years of age. End-stage arthritis of the shoulder is a source of significant pain and debilitating functional loss in the elderly. An arthroplasty offers good relief of pain and may allow the patient to maintain independence. The risk-benefit ratio of shoulder replacement may be felt to be too high in an elderly age group, but there is no published evidence to support this theory. We have assessed whether the procedure was as reliable and safe as previously seen in a younger cohort of patients. Between 1993 and 2003, 213 Copeland surface replacement arthroplasty procedures were performed in our unit, of which 29 (13.6%) were undertaken in patients over the age of 80. This group of patients was followed up for a mean of 4.5 years (2.1 to 9.3). Their mean age was 84.3 years (81 to 93), the mean operating time was 40 minutes (30 to 45) and the mean in-patient stay was five days (2 to 21). There were no peri-operative deaths or significant complications. The mean Constant score adjusted for age and gender, improved from 15.1% to 77%. Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty may be performed with minimal morbidity and rapid rehabilitation in the elderly.

We reviewed 1039 revision total hip replacements where an angle-bore acetabular component was used. After a mean follow-up of nine years (0 to 20.6), the incidence of revision for dislocation was 2.1% (22 revisions), a success rate of 97.9%. In 974 revisions, where the indication was other than dislocation, the success rate was 98.5%. Of the 65 revisions for dislocation, 58 (89.2%) were successful after the first revision and a further five after the second revision, an overall success of 96.9%. Two patients elected to have their implants removed. Dislocation after revision of failed total hip replacement is a complex issue. There is often no single cause and no simple solution. The angle-bore acetabular component, in combination with a 22.225-mm diameter femoral head, offers a high level of success.