Failure of the linkage mechanism in a semi-constrained total elbow arthroplasty is a rare and unpredictable event: a review of seven cases.

PURPOSE: Linked component of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) consisted of bushing and locking pins. Failure of linked components is a rare complication of TEA. This study aims to investigate the mechanism and consequence of failure of the linkage mechanism in TEA surgeries. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2021, five patients received revision operation due to linked component failure. Besides, two patients underwent primary operation at another institute were also analyzed due to failure of the linkage mechanism. RESULTS: All seven patients underwent primary TEA and mean age for primary TEA was 48 (range, 27-62). Two patients had TEA for post-traumatic arthritis, three patients for rheumatoid arthritis, and two patients for comminuted distal humerus fracture. The average time between primary TEA and revision TEA for linked component failure was 13.6 years. Three bushing wear and four locking pin dissociation were diagnosed according to pre-operative radiography. Elbow pain and swelling are the most common clinical symptoms. Severe osteolysis, periprosthetic fracture, and stem loosening were noted in three bushing wear cases. In four dissociation of locking pin cases, breakage of male locking pin phalanges was demonstrated in two patients. For revision procedures, both the locking pins and bushings were replaced. No patients in the study required additional surgery after the revision operation for linked component failure. CONCLUSION: Osteolysis, component loosening, periprosthetic fracture may be expected after linked component failure. Patients should be regularly followed up from short-term to long-term with radiography. Early diagnosis and intervention with linked component exchange can prevent extensive revision surgery.

The Impact of Cement Mantle Characteristics on Early Loosening in Primary Total Elbow Arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: To assess the association between cement mantle characteristics and early radiographic loosening in total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). We aimed to determine whether shorter mantle heights (<20 mm) were associated with loosening. METHODS: We reviewed primary TEAs from a single healthcare system from 2006 to 2020. TEAs complicated by infection or performed for oncologic conditions were excluded. Initial postoperative radiographs were reviewed to determine cement mantle and component characteristics (mantle quality, mantle height, and component angulation). One-year postoperative radiographs were reviewed to assess for implant loosening, and we compared demographics and radiographic criteria for cases with and without early loosening. We noted whether cases underwent subsequent revision for aseptic osteolysis. RESULTS: A total of 54 TEA cases were included. Forty percent of ulnar and 24% of humeral mantles were classified as short (between 1 and 19 mm). According to the Morrey classification, 6 (11%) cases had an inadequate cement mantle Twenty-four (45%) cases had radiographic evidence of loosening at 1 year. Of the cases with early loosening, 6 (25%) had initial inadequate mantle quality. There were no inadequate mantles in the group without loosening. There were no statistically significant differences in mantle heights for cases with and without loosening at 1 year after surgery. Eight (33%) cases underwent revision in the group with early loosening compared with 1 (3%) case without early loosening. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate cement mantle quality was associated with an increased risk of early aseptic loosening after primary TEA. Cement mantles that extended past the tip of the prosthesis were not associated with loosening. Considering the potential need for future revision and morbidity of cement removal, surgeons should focus on mantle quality and carefully plan mantle height because shorter heights may not be associated with early implant failure. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

Revision total elbow arthroplasty: Is it safe to perform a single-stage revision for presumed aseptic loosening based on clinical assessment, normal inflammatory markers, and a negative aspiration?

BACKGROUND: Revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is a challenging procedure that is becoming increasingly common. In our unit, we regard it as essential to exclude infection as the underlying cause of TEA loosening. In all patients with arthroplasty loosening, we undertake a careful history and examination, perform radiographs, monitor inflammatory markers, and undertake a joint aspiration. If any investigation suggests infection as the etiology, then a 2-stage revision is undertaken. Open biopsies are not routinely performed. The aim was to ascertain from our outcomes whether it is safe to perform a single-stage revision for presumed aseptic loosening using these criteria. METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of revision TEAs was performed in our unit over a 10-year period (2008-2018). Single-stage revisions performed for presumed aseptic loosening were identified. Case notes, radiographs, bloods, aspiration results, and microbiology of tissue samples taken at revision were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 123 revision elbow arthroplasty cases were performed in the study period. Sixty cases were revised for preoperatively proven infection, instability, or implant failure and were excluded from this study. In 63 cases, aseptic loosening was diagnosed based on history, clinical examination, blood markers, and aspiration. There were 21 dual-component and 42 single-component revisions. In the dual-component revision group, tissue samples taken at the time of revision were positive in only 1 case (5%). In the single-component revision group, positive culture samples were present in 3 cases (7%). χ2 analysis showed no significant difference between single- and dual-component revisions (P = .76). No cases with positive culture samples from either group have required subsequent revision surgery. CONCLUSION: Given the results of this study, we conclude that is safe to perform single-stage revision arthroplasty for implant loosening based on history, examination, normal inflammatory markers, and negative aspiration results without the need for open biopsy.

Outcomes following revision of the revision total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: There is very little information in the literature on the outcomes of revision of revision total elbow arthroplasty (RRTEA). Our aim was to report the outcomes of this rarely performed procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who had undergone RRTEA between 2007 and 2016. Outcomes were assessed clinically using a number of validated systems, and radiographs were reviewed for prosthesis alignment, cementation by Morrey grading, and heterotopic ossification. RESULTS: We identified 22 patients who underwent RRTEA. Of these patients, 14 were available for assessment (2 died of unrelated causes, 2 could not be contacted, 2 declined to participate because of travel difficulties, and 2 had incomplete data). At the final review, the median age was 73 years (range, 57-83 years), with a median follow-up period of 4.5 years (range, 2-7 years) since the last surgical procedure. The median number of previous revision arthroplasty procedures per patient was 3 (range, 2-6). The indications for RRTEA were aseptic loosening (60%), bushing wear (16%), fracture (14%), and infection (10%). Of the patients, 30% required extra-long or custom-made implants and 50% needed allograft augmentation. At final clinical assessment, 56% of patients had triceps insufficiency, the median flexion-extension arc was 90°, and the median prono-supination arc was 95°. The functional elbow scores revealed good outcomes in the majority of patients (median visual analog scale score, 5; median Oxford Elbow Score, 22; median Mayo Elbow Performance Index score, 55; and median QuickDASH [short version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire] score, 63). Eighty-one percent of patients were satisfied with their RRTEAs. Complications included infection in 2 patients (1 superficial and 1 deep), symptomatic aseptic humeral component loosening in 1, sensory ulnar nerve symptoms in 2, and radial nerve injury in 1. One patient required ulnar nerve release. Radiologic review revealed asymptomatic loosening in 1 patient (humeral component), and overall prosthesis alignment with cementation was adequate in 81%. Heterotopic ossification was present in 38% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: RRTEA is a satisfactory treatment option in these complex cases, with good short- to mid-term survival rates but a relatively high complication rate.

Total Elbow Arthroplasty.

Total elbow arthroplasty design has evolved in recent decades. Indications for total elbow arthroplasty include advanced rheumatoid arthritis to osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, adverse sequelae of trauma, and unreconstructable acute fractures. This article summarizes the current evidence for total elbow arthroplasty, including the history of total elbow arthroplasty, an overview of the recent trends and designs, and current evidence-based outcomes. Outcomes are assessed for specific indications, namely rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, acute trauma, and younger patients. Complication rates, reoperation rates, and survivorship of modern prostheses are discussed. Technical pearls and pitfalls are discussed for primary and revision cases.

Comparison of the hospital costs for two-stage reimplantation for deep infection, single-stage revision and primary total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to determine the cost of two-stage reimplantation for the treatment of deep infection after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and compare this with primary and aseptic revision TEA. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-one primary TEA and 286 revision TEAs (including 47 elbows requiring two-stage reimplantation) were performed. Total direct medical costs during each hospitalization were obtained from our institutional research database and compared for three groups: primary TEA, revision for nonseptic reasons and two-stage reimplantation for deep infection. RESULTS: The mean cost of an uncomplicated primary TEA and aseptic revision TEA was $18,464 and $18,796, respectively. The mean overall cost associated with two-stage reimplantation increased to $34,286. Two-stage reimplantation increased both Part A (hospital costs) and Part B (professional costs). The mean Part A cost for septic revision TEA was $29,102 versus $15,844 for primary TEA. The mean Part B cost for septic revision TEA was $5,184 versus $2,621 for primary TEA. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage reimplantation for treatment of an infected TEA costs 186% the hospital cost of a primary uncomplicated or aseptic revision TEA. The overall cost to society is even greater if we take into account the cost of antibiotic therapy in between stages and lost days from work.