Aims. The aims of this study were to identify and evaluate the current literature examining the prognostic factors which are associated with failure of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Methods. Electronic literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane. All studies reporting prognostic estimates for factors associated with the revision of a primary TEA were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Due to low quality of the evidence and the heterogeneous nature of the studies, a narrative synthesis was used. Results. A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, investigating 28 possible prognostic factors. Most QUIPS domains (84%) were rated as moderate to high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all prognostic factors. In low-quality evidence, prognostic factors with consistent associations with failure of TEA in more than one study were: the sequelae of trauma leading to TEA, either independently or combined with acute trauma, and male sex. Several other studies investigating sex reported no association. The evidence for other factors was of very low quality and mostly involved exploratory studies. Conclusion. The current evidence investigating the prognostic factors associated with failure of TEA is of low or very low quality, and studies generally have a moderate to high risk of bias. Prognostic factors are subject to uncertainty, should be interpreted with caution, and are of little clinical value. Higher-quality evidence is required to determine robust prognostic factors for failure of TEA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(5):201–213

Aims. Arthroplasty is being increasingly used for the management of distal humeral fractures (DHFs) in elderly patients. Arthroplasty options include total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA); both have unique complications and there is not yet a consensus on which implant is superior. This systematic review asked: in patients aged over 65 years with unreconstructable DHFs, what differences are there in outcomes, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and complications, between distal humeral HA and TEA?. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was performed via a search of MEDLINE and Embase. Two reviewers extracted data on PROMs, ROM, and complications. PROMs and ROM results were reported descriptively and a meta-analysis of complications was conducted. Quality of methodology was assessed using Wylde’s non-summative four-point system. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021228329). Results. A total of 29 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) score was 19.6 (SD 7.5) for HA and 38 (SD 11.9) for TEA and the mean abbreviated version of DASH was 17.2 (SD 13.2) for HA and 24.9 (SD 4.8) for TEA. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score was the most commonly reported PROM across included studies, with a mean of 87 (SD 5.3) in HA and 88.3 (SD 5) in TEA. High complication rates were seen in both HA (22% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5 to 44)) and TEA (21% (95% CI 13 to 30), but no statistically significant difference identified. Conclusion. This systematic review has indicated PROMs and ROM mostly favouring HA, but with a similarly high complication rate in the two procedures. However, due to the small sample size and heterogeneity between studies, strength of evidence for these findings is low. We propose further research in the form of a national randomized controlled trial. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):559–566

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) undertaken for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with TEA performed for post-traumatic conditions with regard to implant failure, functional outcome, and perioperative complications. Materials and Methods. We completed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine cohort studies investigated the outcome of TEA between RA and post-traumatic conditions. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)) guidelines and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of the included studies. We assessed three major outcome domains: implant failures (including aseptic loosening, septic loosening, bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture); functional outcomes (including arc of range of movement, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire), and perioperative complications (including deep infection, intraoperative fracture, postoperative fracture, and ulnar neuropathy). Results. This study included a total of 679 TEAs for RA (n = 482) or post-traumatic conditions (n = 197). After exclusion, all of the TEAs included in this meta-analysis were cemented with linked components. Our analysis demonstrated that the RA group was associated with a higher risk of septic loosening after TEA (odds ratio (OR) 3.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 14.12), while there was an increased risk of bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture in the post-traumatic group (OR 4.72, 95% CI 2.37 to 9.35). A higher MEPS (standardized mean difference 0.634, 95% CI 0.379 to 0.890) was found in the RA group. There were no significant differences in arc of range of movement, DASH questionnaire, and risk of aseptic loosening, deep infection, perioperative fracture, or ulnar neuropathy. Conclusion. The aetiology of TEA surgery appears to have an impact on the outcome in terms of specific modes of implant failures. RA patients might have a better functional outcome after TEA surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1489–1497

Aims. The aims of this study were to validate the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to identify factors that affect the outcome. Methods. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, and Embase from between January 2003 and March 2019. The primary aim was to determine the implant failure rate, the mode of failure, and risk factors predisposing to failure. A secondary aim was to identify the overall complication rate, associated risk factors, and clinical performance. A meta-regression analysis was completed to identify the association between each parameter with the outcome. Results. A total of 38 studies including 2,118 TEAs were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 80.9 months (8.2 to 156). The implant failure and complication rates were 16.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.128 to 0.200) and 24.5% (95% CI 0.203 to 0.293), respectively. Aseptic loosening was the most common mode of failure (9.5%; 95% CI 0.071 to 0.124). The mean postoperative ranges of motion (ROMs) were: flexion 131.5° (124.2° to 138.8°), extension 29.3° (26.8° to 31.9°), pronation 74.0° (67.8° to 80.2°), and supination 72.5° (69.5° to 75.5°), and the mean postoperative Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 89.3 (95% CI 86.9 to 91.6). The meta-regression analysis identified that younger patients and implants with an unlinked design correlated with higher failure rates. Younger patients were associated with increased complications, while female patients and an unlinked prosthesis were associated with aseptic loosening. Conclusion. TEA continues to provide satisfactory results for patients with RA. However, it is associated with a substantially higher implant failure and complication rates compared with hip and knee arthroplasties. The patient’s age, sex, and whether cemented fixation and unlinked prosthesis were used can influence the outcome. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):967–980