There have been only a few small studies of patients with an infected shoulder replacement treated with a single-stage exchange procedure. We retrospectively reviewed 35 patients (19 men and 16 women) with a peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder who were treated in this way. A total of 26 were available for clinical examination; three had died, two were lost to follow-up and four patients had undergone revision surgery. The mean follow-up time was 4.7 years (1.1 to 13.25), with an infection-free survival of 94%. The organisms most commonly isolated intra-operatively were Staphylococcus epidermidis and Propionibacterium acnes; two patients developed a recurrent infection. Three different types of prosthesis were used: a hemiarthroplasty, a hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar head and reverse prosthesis. The mean Constant-Murley score at final follow-up was 43.3 (14 to 90) for patients with a hemiarthroplasty, 56 (40 to 88) for those with a hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar head and 61 (7 to 90) for those with a reverse prosthesis. The mean hospital stay was 10.6 days (5 to 29). Single-stage exchange is a successful and practical treatment for patients with peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:391–5

We retrospectively reviewed 21 patients (22 shoulders) who presented with deep infection after surgery to the shoulder, 17 having previously undergone hemiarthroplasty and five open repair of the rotator cuff. Nine shoulders had undergone previous surgical attempts to eradicate their infection. The diagnosis of infection was based on a combination of clinical suspicion (16 shoulders), positive frozen sections (> 5 polymorphonuclear leukocytes per high-power field) at the time of revision (15 shoulders), positive intra-operative cultures (18 shoulders) or the pre-operative radiological appearances. The patients were treated by an extensive debridement, intravenous antibiotics, and conversion to a reverse shoulder prosthesis in either a single- (10 shoulders) or a two-stage (12 shoulders) procedure. At a mean follow-up of 43 months (25 to 66) there was no evidence of recurrent infection. All outcome measures showed statistically significant improvements. Mean abduction improved from 36.1° (. sd. 27.8) pre-operatively to 75.7° (. sd. 36.0) (p < 0.0001), the mean forward flexion from 43.1° (. sd. 33.5) to 79.5° (. sd. 43.2) (p = 0.0003), and mean external rotation from 10.2° (. sd. 18.7) to 25.4° (. sd. 23.5) (p = 0.0037). There was no statistically significant difference in any outcome between the single-stage and the two-stage group

We report the effectiveness of revision of total elbow replacement by re-cementing. Between 1982 and 2004, 53 elbows in 52 patients were treated with re-cementing of a total elbow replacement into part or all of the existing cement mantle or into the debrided host-bone interface, without the use of structural bone augmentation or a custom prosthesis. The original implant revision was still in situ and functional in 42 of 53 elbows (79%) at a mean of 94.5 months (26 to 266) after surgery. In 31 of these 42 elbows (74%) the Mayo Elbow Performance Score was good or excellent. Overall, of the 53 elbows, 18 (34%) required re-operation, ten (19%) for loosening. A classification system was developed to identify those not suitable for revision by this technique, and using this we have showed that successful re-implantation is statistically correlated to properly addressing the bone deficiency for both the humeral (p = 0.005) and the ulnar (p = 0.039) components.

We examined the effects of previous resection of the radial head and synovectomy on the outcome of subsequent total elbow arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Fifteen elbows with a history of resection and synovectomy were compared with a control group of patients who had elbow arthroplasty with an implant of the same design. The mean age in both groups was 63 years. In the study group, resection of the radial head and synovectomy had been undertaken at a mean of 8.9 years before arthroplasty. The mean radiological follow-up for the 13 available patients in the study group was 5.89 years (0.3 to 11.0) and in the control group was 6.6 years (2.2 to 12.6). There were no revisions in either group. The mean Mayo elbow performance score improved from 29 to 96 in the study group, with similar improvement in the control group (28 to 87). The study group had excellent results in 13 elbows and good results in two. The control group had excellent results in seven and good results in six.

Our experience indicates that previous resection of the radial head and synovectomy are not associated with an increased rate of revision following subsequent arthroplasty of the elbow. However, there was a higher rate of complication in the study group compared with the control group.