We compared six patients with a mean age of 70 years (49 to 80) with severe bilateral, painful glenohumeral joint destruction who underwent a single-stage bilateral total shoulder replacement, with eight patients of mean age 61 years (22 to 89) who underwent bilateral total shoulder replacement in two stages, at a mean interval of 18 months (6 to 43). The overall function, pain and strength improved significantly in both groups. The subjective shoulder value, relative Constant score, active external rotation and the strength were improved significantly more in the single-stage group. Active elevation, abduction and overall function improved, significantly more in the single-stage group. Both the total duration of hospitalisation and the time off work per shoulder were substantially shorter in the single-stage group. The overall rate of complication was lower in the single-stage group. Our findings indicated that single-stage bilateral total shoulder replacement yielded significantly better clinical results with shorter hospitalisation and rehabilitation than staged replacement, and was not associated with any increase in complications

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.

There is little information about the management of peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus after total shoulder replacement (TSR). This is a retrospective review of 22 patients who underwent a revision of their original shoulder replacement for peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus with bone loss and/or loose components. There were 20 women and two men with a mean age of 75 years (61 to 90) and a mean follow-up 42 months (12 to 91): 16 of these had undergone a previous revision TSR. Of the 22 patients, 12 were treated with a long-stemmed humeral component that bypassed the fracture. All their fractures united after a mean of 27 weeks (13 to 94). Eight patients underwent resection of the proximal humerus with endoprosthetic replacement to the level of the fracture. Two patients were managed with a clam-shell prosthesis that retained the original components. The mean Oxford shoulder score (OSS) of the original TSRs before peri-prosthetic fracture was 33 (14 to 48). The mean OSS after revision for fracture was 25 (9 to 31). Kaplan-Meier survival using re-intervention for any reason as the endpoint was 91% (95% confidence interval (CI) 68 to 98) and 60% (95% CI 30 to 80) at one and five years, respectively.

There were two revisions for dislocation of the humeral head, one open reduction for modular humeral component dissociation, one internal fixation for nonunion, one trimming of a prominent screw and one re-cementation for aseptic loosening complicated by infection, ultimately requiring excision arthroplasty. Two patients sustained nerve palsies.

Revision TSR after a peri-prosthetic humeral fracture associated with bone loss and/or loose components is a salvage procedure that can provide a stable platform for elbow and hand function. Good rates of union can be achieved using a stem that bypasses the fracture. There is a high rate of complications and function is not as good as with the original replacement.

Between September 1993 and September 1996, we performed 34 Kudo 5 total elbow replacements in 31 rheumatoid patients. All 22 surviving patients were reviewed at a mean of 11.9 years (10 to 14). Their mean age was 56 years (37 to 78) at the time of operation. All had Larsen grade IV or V rheumatoid changes on X-ray. Nine (three bilateral replacements and six unilateral) had died from unrelated causes. One who had died before ten years underwent revision for dislocation.

Of the 22 total elbow replacements reviewed six had required revision, four for aseptic loosening (one humeral and three ulnar) and two for infection. Post-operatively, one patient had neuropraxia of the ulnar nerve and one of the radial nerve. Two patients had valgus tilting of the ulnar component.

With revision as the endpoint, the mean survival time for the prosthesis was 11.3 years (95% confidence interval (10 to 13) and the estimated survival of the prosthesis at 12 years according to Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was 74% (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.91).

Of the 16 surviving implants, ten were free from pain, four had mild pain and two moderate. The mean arc of flexion/extension of the elbow was 106° (65° to 130°) with pronation/supination of 90° (30° to 150°) with the joint at 90° of flexion. The mean Mayo elbow performance score was 82 (60 to 100) with five excellent, ten good and one fair result.

Good long-term results can be expected using the Kudo 5 total elbow replacement in patients with rheumatoid disease, with a low incidence of loosening of the components.

We report the results of performing a pronating osteotomy of the radius, coupled with other soft-tissue procedures, as part of an upper limb functional surgery programme in tetraplegic patients with supination contractures.

In total 12 patients were reviewed with a mean follow-up period of 60 months (12 to 109). Pre-operatively, passive movement ranged from a mean of 19.2° pronation (−70° to 80°) to 95.8° supination (80° to 140°). A pronating osteotomy of the radius was then performed with release of the interosseous membrane. Extension of the elbow was restored postoperatively in 11 patients, with key-pinch reconstruction in nine.

At the final follow-up every patient could stabilise their hand in pronation, with a mean active range of movement of 79.6° (60° to 90°) in pronation and 50.4° (0° to 90°) in supination. No complications were observed. The mean strength of extension of the elbow was 2.7 (2 to 3) MRC grading.

Pronating osteotomy stabilises the hand in pronation while preserving supination, if a complete release of the interosseous membrane is also performed. This technique fits well into surgical programmes for enhancing upper limb function.

Between 1993 and 2002, 58 GSB III total elbow replacements were implanted in 45 patients with rheumatoid arthritis by the same surgeon. At the most recent follow-up, five patients had died (five elbows) and six (nine elbows) had been lost to follow-up, leaving 44 total elbow replacements in 34 patients available for clinical and radiological review at a mean follow-up of 74 months (25 to 143). There were 26 women and eight men with a mean age at operation of 55.7 years (24 to 77).

At the latest follow-up, 31 excellent (70%), six good (14%), three fair (7%) and four poor (9%) results were noted according to the Mayo elbow performance score. Five humeral (11%) and one ulnar (2%) component were loose according to radiological criteria (type III or type IV). Of the 44 prostheses, two (5%) had been revised, one for type-IV humeral loosening after follow-up for ten years and one for fracture of the ulnar component. Seven elbows had post-operative dysfunction of the ulnar nerve, which was transient in five and permanent in two.

Despite an increased incidence of loosening with time, the GSB III prosthesis has given favourable mid-term results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

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.