Aims. The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry. Methods. All TEAs recorded in the Dutch national registry between 2014 and 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and a logistic regression model was used to assess the factors associated with revision. Results. A total of 514 TEAs were included, of which 35 were revised. The five-year implant survival was 91%. Male sex, a higher BMI, and previous surgery to the same elbow showed a statistically significant association with revision (p < 0.036). Of the 35 revised implants, ten (29%) underwent a second revision. Conclusion. This study reports a five-year implant survival of TEA of 91%. Patient factors associated with revision are defined and can be used to optimize informed consent and shared decision-making. There was a high rate of secondary revisions. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):110–119

The Souter-Strathclyde prosthesis was used in 52 revisions of total elbow replacements (TERs) between August 1986 and May 1997. Of these, 50, carried out in 45 patients, were prospectively followed for a mean of 53 months (14 to 139). The procedure produced reliable relief of pain, and the range of movement was preserved. There was a considerable incidence of adverse events associated with revision (30%), and 12 further procedures have been required. Nonetheless, a revision is the preferred salvage procedure for failed primary arthroplasty in the absence of sepsis

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 revision to total elbow arthroplasty at a mean of 30 months with good results to date. Instability of the elbow, both before and after surgery, was found to be associated with unsatisfactory results. The rate of success when the procedure was performed for inflammatory arthritis was similar to that for post-traumatic arthritis, about 67%. Eight complications occurred in six patients, all in the group with post-traumatic arthritis. Two of these required further surgical procedures such as transposition of the ulnar nerve or repair of hernia of the fascia lata. Although less reliable than prosthetic replacement, distraction interposition arthroplasty is a useful option in the treatment of young, high-demand patients with arthritis of the elbow. It is rarely indicated in the presence of generalised inflammatory arthritis, but may be of value in those patients in whom the disease is limited primarily to the elbow

Aims. Revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is often challenging. The aim of this study was to report on the clinical and radiological results of revision arthroplasty of the elbow with the Latitude TEA. Patients and Methods. Between 2006 and 2010 we used the Latitude TEA for revision in 18 consecutive elbows (17 patients); mean age 53 years (28 to 80); 14 women. A Kudo TEA was revised in 15 elbows and a Souter-Strathclyde TEA in three. Stability, range of movement (ROM), visual analogue score (VAS) for pain and functional scores, Elbow Functional Assessment Scale (EFAS), the Functional Rating Index of Broberg and Morrey (FRIBM) and the Modified Andrews’ Elbow Scoring System (MAESS) were assessed pre-operatively and at each post-operative follow-up visit (six, 12 months and biennially thereafter). Radiographs were analysed for loosening, fractures and dislocation. The mean follow-up was 59 months (26 to 89). Results. The ROM of the elbow did not improve significantly. The mean EFAS and MAESS scores improved significantly six months post-operatively (18.6 points, standard deviation (. sd. ) 7.7; p = 0.03 and 28.8 points, . sd . 8.6; p = 0.006, respectively) and continued to improve slightly or reached a plateau. The mean pain scores at rest (Z = -3.2, p = 0.001) and during activity (Z = -3.2, p = 0.001), and stability (Z = -3.0, p = 0.003) improved significantly six months post-operatively. Thereafter scores continued to improve slightly or a plateau was reached. There were no signs of loosening. Conclusion. Revision surgery using the Latitude TEA results in improvement of functionality, reduced pain and better stability of the elbow. Improvement of ROM of the elbow should not be expected. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1086–92

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.