Aims. The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with
The Souter-Strathclyde prosthesis was used in 52
We reviewed 25 patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had failure of 26 primary total elbow arthroplasties causing pain and loss of function. Most revision cases required special custom implants to treat varying bone loss and soft-tissue disruption. Assessment showed satisfactory functional results in the patients treated by revision at a mean follow-up period of 35 months. Our review suggests that revision surgery produces short- to medium-term painfree function, and is the treatment of choice for a failed total elbow arthroplasty in the absence of infection.
We studied retrospectively the results of revision arthroplasty of the elbow using a linked Coonrad-Morrey implant in 23 patients (24 elbows) after a mean follow-up period of 55 months. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 19 elbows were satisfactory, nine were excellent and ten good. The median total score had improved from 35 points (20 to 75) before the primary arthroplasty to 85 points (40 to 100) at the latest follow-up. There was a marked relief of pain, but the range of movement showed no overall improvement. Two patients had a second revision because of infection and two for aseptic loosening. The estimated five-year survival rate of the prosthesis was 83.1% (95% confidence interval 61.1 to 93.3). Revision elbow arthroplasty using the Coonrad-Morrey implant provided satisfactory results but with complications occurring in 13 cases.
Between 1986 and 1994, 13 patients with mobile painful arthritic elbows were treated by distraction interposition arthroplasty using fascia lata. The mean period of follow-up was 63 months. An elbow distractor/fixator was applied for three to four weeks to separate the articular surfaces and to protect the fascial graft. Nine of the 13 patients (69%) had satisfactory relief from pain; eight (62%) had an excellent or good result by the objective criteria of the Mayo Elbow Performance score. Four have required
Aims.
We describe a lateral approach to the distal humerus based on initial location of the superficial branches of the radial nerve, the inferior lateral cutaneous nerve of the arm and the posterior cutaneous nerve of the forearm. In 18 upper limbs the superficial branches of the radial nerve were located in the subcutaneous tissue between the triceps and brachioradialis muscles and dissected proximally to their origin from the radial nerve, exposing the shaft of the humerus. The inferior lateral cutaneous nerve of the arm arose from the radial nerve at the lower part of the spiral groove, at a mean of 14.2 cm proximal to the lateral epicondyle. The posterior cutaneous nerve of the forearm arose from the inferior lateral cutaneous nerve at a mean of 6.9 cm (6.0 to 8.1) proximal to the lateral epicondyle and descended vertically along the dorsal aspect of the forearm. The size and constant site of emergence between the triceps and brachioradialis muscles constitute a readily identifiable landmark to explore the radial nerve and expose the humeral shaft.
Between 1996 and 2008, nine patients with severe post-traumatic arthritis underwent revision of a failed interposition arthroplasty of the elbow with a further interposition procedure using an allograft of tendo Achillis at a mean of 5.6 years (0.7 to 13.1) after the initial procedure. There were eight men and one woman with a mean age of 47 years (36 to 56). The mean follow-up was 4.7 years (2 to 8). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance score improved from 49 (15 to 65) pre-operatively to 73 (55 to 95) (p = 0.04). The mean Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 26 (7 to 42). One patient was unavailable for clinical follow-up and one underwent total elbow replacement three months post-operatively. Of the remaining patients, one had an excellent, two had good, three fair and one a poor result. Subjectively, five of the nine patients were satisfied. Four continued manual labour. Revision interposition arthroplasty is an option for young, active patients with severe post-traumatic arthritis who require both mobility and durability of the elbow.
We studied, ten patients (11 elbows) who had
undergone 14 allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions following
failure of a previous total elbow replacement with massive structural
bone loss. There were nine women and one man with a mean age of
64 years (40 to 84), who were reviewed at a mean of 75 months (24
to 213). One patient developed a deep infection after 26 months
and had the allograft-prosthesis composite removed, and two patients
had mild pain. The median flexion-extension arc was 100° (95% confidence
interval (CI) 76° to 124°). With the exception of the patient who
had the infected failure, all the patients could use their elbows
comfortably without splints or braces for activities of daily living.
The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Index improved from 9.5 (95% CI
4.4 to 14.7) pre-operatively to 74 (95% CI 62.4 to 84.9) at final
review. Radiologically, the rate of partial resorption was similar in
the humeral and ulnar allografts (three of six and four of eight,
respectively; p >
0.999). The patterns of resorption, however, were
different. Union at the host-bone-allograft junction was also different
between the humeral and ulnar allografts (one of six and seven of
eight showing union, respectively; p = 0.03). At medium-term follow-up, allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction
appears to be a useful salvage technique for failed elbow replacements
with massive bone loss. The effects of allograft resorption and
host-bone-allograft junctional union on the longevity of allograft-prosthesis
composite reconstruction, however, remain unknown, and it is our
view that these patients should remain under long-term regular review.
In a systematic review, reports from national registers and clinical studies were identified and analysed with respect to revision rates after joint replacement, which were calculated as revisions per 100 observed component years. After primary hip replacement, a mean of 1.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen. The results after primary total knee replacement are 1.26 revisions per 100 observed component years, and 1.53 after medial unicompartmental replacement. After total ankle replacement a mean of 3.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen. The outcomes of total hip and knee replacement are almost identical. Revision rates of about 6% after five years and 12% after ten years are to be expected.