Do ChatGPT and Google differ in answers to commonly asked patient questions regarding total shoulder and total elbow arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) offer a new potential resource for patient education. The answers by Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), a LLM AI text bot, to frequently asked questions (FAQs) were compared to answers provided by a contemporary Google search to determine the reliability of information provided by these sources for patient education in upper extremity arthroplasty. METHODS: "Total shoulder arthroplasty" (TSA) and "total elbow arthroplasty" (TEA) were entered into Google Search and ChatGPT 3.0 to determine the ten most FAQs. On Google, the FAQs were obtained through the "people also ask" section, while ChatGPT was asked to provide the ten most FAQs. Each question, answer, and reference(s) cited were recorded. A modified version of the Rothwell system was used to categorize questions into 10 subtopics: special activities, timeline of recovery, restrictions, technical details, cost, indications/management, risks and complications, pain, longevity, and evaluation of surgery. Each reference was categorized into the following groups: commercial, academic, medical practice, single surgeon personal, or social media. Questions for TSA and TEA were combined for analysis and compared between Google and ChatGPT with a 2 sample Z-test for proportions. RESULTS: Overall, most questions were related to procedural indications or management (17.5%). There were no significant differences between Google and ChatGPT between question categories. The majority of references were from academic websites (65%). ChatGPT produced a greater number of academic references compared to Google (80% vs. 50%; P = .047), while Google more commonly provided medical practice references (25% vs. 0%; P = .017). CONCLUSION: In conjunction with patient-physician discussions, AI LLMs may provide a reliable resource for patients. By providing information based on academic references, these tools have the potential to improve health literacy and improved shared decision making for patients searching for information about TSA and TEA. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: With the rising prevalence of AI programs, it is essential to understand how these applications affect patient education in medicine.

Midterm follow-up of the Nexel total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Aseptic loosening is one of the most common complications of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Modern implants, such as the Nexel, have been designed in an attempt to decrease loosening. The present study aims to report implant survivorship, radiographic assessment of loosening and lucency, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients treated with the Nexel TEA at midterm follow-up. METHODS: Consecutive series of adult patients underwent TEA using the Nexel by a single surgeon via standardized technique. Patients with minimum 3-year follow-up with radiographic and PROM data were included. Survivorship was defined by the absence of revision. Loosening was assessed via the Wrightington method by 3 independent fellowship-trained shoulder and elbow surgeons. Lucency was analyzed across individual radiographic zones on orthogonal radiographs. PROMs included the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE), and EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D). RESULTS: Thirty-eight consecutive patients (22 female, 16 male) with a mean age of 67 years underwent TEA via a triceps-sparing isolated medial window approach. Mean follow-up was 5.5 years (range 3-9). Primary diagnoses were as follows: 19 osteoarthritis (OA), 9 rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 9 post-traumatic arthritis (PA), and 1 conversion of elbow arthrodesis. Overall survivorship was 97.4%, with 1 patient undergoing revision for infection. Loosening was found in 5.3% of elbows, averaged across 3 observers. Lucency was most pronounced at the level of the humeral condyles. PROMs demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful improvements in 76%, 92%, and 73% of patients for QuickDASH, PREE, and EQ-5D, respectively. No significant correlations were found between patient age, gender, loosening, lucency, and PROMs. CONCLUSION: At midterm follow-up, the Nexel TEA demonstrated excellent overall survivorship and low rate of implant loosening. The single failure requiring revision for infection was conversion of a prior elbow arthrodesis. PROMs overall exhibited marked and consistent improvement from preoperative to final postoperative follow-up. Although promising, these results should be interpreted with some caution as long-term data regarding this prosthesis are still lacking.

Distal humeral hemiarthroplasty compared to total elbow replacement for distal humeral fractures: a registry analysis of 906 procedures.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow replacement (TER) is an accepted treatment for complex intra-articular distal humerus fractures in elderly patients. Distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (HA) is also a potential surgical option for unreconstructable fractures and avoids the concerns regarding mechanical wear and functional restrictions associated with TER. In the current literature, there are limited data available to compare the revision rates of HA and TER for the treatment of fracture. We used data from a large national arthroplasty registry to compare the outcome of HA and TER undertaken for fracture/dislocation and to assess the impact of demographics and implant choice on revision rates. METHODS: Data obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from May 2, 2005, to December 31, 2021, included all procedures for primary elbow replacement with primary diagnosis of fracture or dislocation. The analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: There were 293 primary HA and 631 primary TER procedures included. The cumulative percentage revision (CPR) rate at 9 years was 9.7% for HA (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0, 15.7), and 11.9% (95% CI 8.5, 16.6) for TER. When adjusted for age and gender, there was a significantly higher risk of revision after 3 months for TER compared to HA (HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.22, 5.03, P = .012). There was no difference in the rate of revision for patients aged <55 years or ≥75 years when HA and TER procedures were compared. In primary TER procedures, loosening was the most common cause of revision (3.6% of primary TER procedures), and the most common type of revision in primary TER involved revision of the humeral component only (2.6% of TER procedures). TER has a higher rate of first revision for loosening compared to HA (HR 4.21, 95% CI 1.29, 13.73; P = .017). In HA procedures, instability (1.7%) was the most common cause for revision. The addition of an ulna component was the most common type of revision (2.4% of all HA procedures). CONCLUSION: For the treatment of distal humerus fractures, HA had a lower revision rate than TER after 3 months when adjusted for age and gender. Age <55 or ≥75 years was not a risk factor for revision when HA was compared to TER. Loosening leading to revision is more prevalent in TER and increases with time. In HA, the most common type of revision involved addition of an ulna component with preservation of the humeral component.

High failure rate of 2-stage revision for the infected total elbow arthroplasty: a single institution's experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite 2-stage revision being a common treatment for elbow prosthetic joint infection (PJI), failure rates are high. The purpose of this study was to report on a single institution's experience with 2-stage revisions for elbow PJI and determine risk factors for failed eradication of infection. The secondary purpose was to determine risk factors for needing allograft bone at the second stage of revision in the setting of compromised bone stock. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all 2-stage revision total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) performed for infection at a single institution between 2006 and 2020. Data collected included demographics and treatment course prior to, during, and after 2-stage revision. Radiographs obtained after explantation and operative reports were reviewed to evaluate for partial component retention and incomplete cement removal. The primary outcome was failed eradication of infection, defined as the need for repeat surgery to treat infection after the second-stage revision. The secondary outcome was the use of allograft for compromised bone stock during the second-stage revision. Risk factors for both outcomes were determined. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included. Seven patients (37%) had either the humeral or ulnar component retained during the first stage, and 10 (53%) had incomplete removal of cement in either the humerus or ulna. Nine patients (47%) had allograft strut used during reimplantation and reconstruction. Nine patients (47%) failed to eradicate the infection after 2-stage revision. Demographic data were similar between the repeat-infection and nonrepeat-infection groups. Six patients (60%) with retained cement failed compared with 3 patients (33%) with full cement removal (P = .370). Two patients (29%) with a retained component failed compared to 7 patients (58%) with full component removal (P = .350). Allograft was used less frequently when a well-fixed component or cement was retained, with no patients with a retained component needing allograft compared to 9 with complete component removal (P = .003). Three patients (30%) with retained cement needed allograft, compared with 6 patients (67%) who had complete cement removal (P = .179). CONCLUSION: Nearly half of the patients failed to eradicate infection after 2-stage revision. The data did not demonstrate a clear association between retained cement or implants and risk of recurrent infection. Allograft was used less frequently when a component and cement were retained, possibly serving as a proxy for decreased bone loss during the first stage of revision. Therefore, the unclear benefit of removing well-fixed components and cement need to be carefully considered as it likely leads to compromised bone stock that complicates the second stage of revision.

The impact of anatomic alignment on radiocapitellar pressure following radial head arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of radial head fractures is increasing, and radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is being more frequently used as treatment for irreparable fractures. Our objective was to compare radiocapitellar pressure between the native joint and 2 radial head prosthesis conditions: (1) a prosthetic head that was aligned to the forearm axis of rotation and (2) the same prosthesis with an axisymmetric nonaligned head. METHODS: Ten cadaveric specimens received a pressfit radial head prosthesis (Align; Skeletal Dynamics) for both prosthetic testing conditions. Anatomic alignment (AL) was defined as the prosthetic head aligned to the forearm axis of rotation. Axisymmetric alignment (AX) was defined as the prosthetic radial head aligned to the axis of the prosthetic stem. Axial load was applied with the elbow in extension and the forearm pronated. Data were collected using a Tekscan 4000 sensor. RESULTS: The mean pressure in the AL and AX groups were significantly higher than the mean pressure in the native joint. Compared with the native joint, the mean pressure was 19% higher in the AL group and 56% higher in the AX group. Peak pressure beyond 5 MPa occurred in 0 specimens in the native joint group, in 1 specimen (10%) in the AL group, and in 5 specimens (50%) in the AX group. DISCUSSION: Our results demonstrated that a pressfit radial head prosthesis aligned with the forearm axis of rotation yields capitellar pressures that were more similar to the native condition than a nonaligned pressfit prosthesis. These findings suggest that anatomic alignment may optimize capitellar wear properties, improving the long-term durability of radial head arthroplasty.

Reconstruction of the elbow with distal humerus endoprosthetic replacement after tumor resection: a systematic review of the literature and institutional case series.

BACKGROUND: Distal humerus replacement (DHR) is a modular endoprosthesis mainly used for bone reconstruction after resection of primary or metastatic bone lesions. Studies on DHR failure rates and postoperative functional outcomes are scarce. We sought to assess implant survival, modes of failure, and functional outcomes in patients undergoing DHR for oncologic indications. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed. PRISMA guidelines were followed for this manuscript. Our study was registered on PROSPERO (457,260). Quality appraisal of included studies was conducted using the STROBE checklist. Prosthetic failure was assessed using the Henderson classification for megaprosthetic failures. We additionally performed a retrospective review of patients treated with a DHR for oncologic indications at a large tertiary care academic center. Weighted means were calculated to pool data. RESULTS: Eleven studies with a total of 162 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range, 1.66-8 years). Henderson type 2 failures (aseptic loosening) were the most common mode of failure, occurring in 12% of cases (range, 0%-33%). Five-year implant survival was 72% (range, 49%-93.7%). Mean postoperative Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 81.1 (range, 74-84.3). In our institutional case series, 2 out of 5 patients had DHR revision for periprosthetic fracture and aseptic loosening at 16 and 27 months after surgery, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Distal humerus replacement is a successful reconstruction strategy for tumors of the distal humerus, with high implant survival and good to excellent functional outcomes.

Does timing of total elbow arthroplasty after distal humerus fracture affect 2-year complication rates?

BACKGROUND: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) remains the gold standard for adult distal humerus fractures (DHF). However, indications for total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) continue to expand and the incidence of primary and salvage TEA for DHF has increased. The objective of this study was to compare complication and reoperation rate for acute vs. delayed primary and salvage TEA performed for DHF. METHODS: Patients who underwent TEA for DHF were identified in the PearlDiver database. Patients were sorted into 3 cohorts: (1) acute TEA (within 2 weeks of diagnosis), (2) delayed TEA (between 2 weeks and 6 months after diagnosis), and (3) salvage TEA (after failed ORIF, malunion, nonunion, delayed treatment between 6 months and 1 year or post-traumatic arthritis). Multivariate analysis was used to assess for confounding variables and covariates when identifying differences in complications between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 788 patients underwent acute TEA, 213 patients underwent delayed TEA, and 422 patients underwent salvage TEA after DHF. The incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (8.5% vs. 3.4%, odds ratio [OR] 2.60, P = .002) and triceps injury (2.4% vs. 0.4%, OR 6.29, P = .012) were higher in the delayed compared to acute cohort. The incidence of revision (8.5% vs. 2.1%, OR 3.76, P < 0.001), periprosthetic fracture (4.3% vs. 1.1%, OR 3.64, P = .002), PJI (14.7% vs 3.4%, OR 4.36, P < .001), triceps injury (2.6% vs. 0.4%, OR 5.70, P = .008), and wound complications (6.9% vs 2.9%, OR 2.33, P = .002) were higher in the salvage compared to acute cohort. There was an increased rate of revision (8.5% vs. 1.9%, OR 6.08, P = .002) in the salvage compared to delayed cohort. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing salvage TEA after DHF have increased rates of revision, periprosthetic fracture, PJI, triceps injury, and wound complications at 2 years post-operatively. The salvage cohort also had an increased risk of revision when compared to the delayed cohort. However, other than revision rates, patients in the salvage and delayed cohorts have similar postoperative complication rates.

Outcomes of total elbow arthroplasty in the treatment of distal humeral fractures in the elderly: a retrospective cohort comparison between primary arthroplasty and arthroplasty secondary to failed internal fixation.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of total elbow arthroplasty as the index procedure in the treatment of traumatic distal humerus fractures with those of secondary total elbow arthroplasty after failed internal fixation. The secondary objective was to compare the complication rates and the radiographic results in the 2 groups. Our hypothesis was that the clinical results of total elbow arthroplasty performed after failed internal fixation were comparable to those of primary total elbow arthroplasty in the treatment of distal humerus fractures in the elderly population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort comparison study, including 60 patients with a median age of 80 years (71-85 years), who either underwent a primary total elbow arthroplasty (group 1; 45 patients) or secondary total elbow arthroplasty after failed internal fixation (group 2; 15 patients) in the treatment of a post-traumatic supra and intercondylar fracture of the distal humerus, between January 2004 and January 2021. The clinical examination, including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score and triceps proficiency test, complication rates, and the need for reoperation were noted. The average clinical and radiographic follow-up was 40.8 months (24-120 months). RESULTS: The clinical results of the 2 groups were comparable when looking at the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (90.00 [85.00, 100.00], P = .486). With regard to complications, there were 2 surgical site infections in group 1 and 3 in group 2 (P = .099), 1 case of mechanical loosening of the humeral component in group 1 and 1 in group 2 (P = .448), and 1 patient with triceps insufficiency in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary total elbow arthroplasty after failed internal fixation has shown good functional results and a complication rate comparable to that of index total elbow arthroplasty in the treatment of articular fractures of the distal humerus in the elderly.

Long-term outcomes and trends in elbow arthroplasty with Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis: a retrospective study in large group of patients.

PURPOSE: Total Elbow Arthroplasty (TEA) was first developed to treat severe rheumatoid arthritis, but its uses have grown to encompass end-stage osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, and distal humeral fractures. This study analyzes indications changes, long-term survival, complications, and post-operative functional results of the Coonrad-Morrey prostheses, enhancing the existing literature on this technique and substantial case history. METHODS: We included 122 arthroplasties in 117 patients, 28 males and 89 females (mean age of 67 years) treated in our hospital between 2002 and 2016. Minimum follow-up was four years. We collect functional parameters of 48 patients (51 elbows), due to death of patients due to old age and loss at follow-up. RESULTS: Survival rate at five years was 90%, 85% at 10 years and 83% at 15 years. The overall medium Mayo elbow score was 79.7 ± 18.3 with the highest result in osteoarthritis patients (p < 0.005); QuickDASH score was 33.1 ± 25.5 with the worse result in rheumatoid group. Average post-operative arc of motion (ROM) was 95°±27°. There were complications in 46 out of 122 cases (37.7%) and revision surgeries were performed in 12 of them (9.8%): seven aseptic loosening, four late septic loosening, one bushing wear. In 27 instances (22.1%) was reported ulnar nerve involvement. CONCLUSION: Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis has shown satisfactory clinical results in the treatment of a wide range of pathologies. The long-term implant survivorship was satisfactory, yet the occurrence of failures and complications cannot be overlooked, above all the ulnar nerve paresthesia. There was a good recovery in quality of life, pain-free with limited residual limb disability.

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.

Evaluation of interleukin-6 in synovial fluid in periprosthetic joint infection of the elbow.

PURPOSE: Searching for quick determinable biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity is necessary to improve and optimise the early diagnosis of periprosthetic elbow infection (PEI). Therefore, this study's objective was to evaluate the diagnostic value of synovial fluid interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels for diagnosing PEI in total elbow arthroplasty. METHOD: Twelve prospective enrolled patients underwent total elbow arthroplasty revision surgery, during which synovial fluid was obtained. Between the initial implantation and the revision procedure were 33.5 ± 41 months (range, 2-144 months). Synovial fluid was collected for immediate IL-6 analysis parallel to the revision surgery. Furthermore, microbiological samples were obtained and analysed. Two groups were defined based on the microbiological results: non-infection and infection group. The ability of synovial fluid IL-6 analysis to predict infection status was explored using receiver operating characteristic curves and further statistical analysis. RESULTS: Synovial fluid IL-6 analysis had a good diagnostic accuracy of 83% for PEI with an area under the curve of 0,79 and an ideal cutoff value (determined using Youden's criterion) of 15244 pg/mL. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to clinically evaluate IL-6 as a diagnostical marker for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total elbow arthroplasty. Our results suggest a good accuracy and high sensitivity for IL-6 to identify a PEI. The analysis of IL-6 can improve surgical decision-making regarding managing total elbow arthroplasty in terms of one- or two-staged revision. CONCLUSION: IL-6 can play an important role in the perioperative differentiation of infected and non-infected situations.

Long-terms outcomes of radial head arthroplasty using a bipolar prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: In acute treatment of radial head fractures, a radial head prosthesis can be considered if open reduction and internal fixation are not technically feasible. METHODS: We reviewed the data of 27 consecutive bipolar Judet radial head prostheses implanted in patients with unreconstructable radial head fractures and no other concomitant fractures (coronoid or olecranon factures). The lesions of the lateral collateral ligament were rated according to the McKee classification. Twenty-three patients with more than ten-year follow-up participated in this retrospective study All patients underwent assessments for pain, range of motion and stability using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, the QuickDash questionnaire and a Visual Analogue Scale for pain. Radiography assessment was performed to determine the correct setting of the implant, presence of periprosthetic loosening, prosthetic disassembly, heterotopic ossification, capitellum and ulnohumeral degenerative changes. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 149 months (± 12.2). Mean range of motion in flexion-extension was 111° (± 10.55), mean extension was 18° (± 14.32) and mean flexion was 130° (± 11.4). Mean arc of motion in supination-pronation was 150° (± 12.26). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 88, the mean QuickDash score was 7.3; 86% of the patients were satisfied. Seven patients (26%) required secondary surgery. The most frequent complication was heterotopic ossification, which had negative consequences on the functional result. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar radial head prostheses are an option for acute treatment of isolated unreconstructable radial head fractures. During follow-up, three patients required implant revision and removal; the capitellum surface presented severe degenerative changes and the prosthesis was not replaced. Another complication was the risk of implant dislocation, in relation to implant design, incorrect positioning of the radial head stem or else to inadequate reconstruction of the lateral collateral ligament. Further work is needed to establish the long-term follow-up results of Judet implants in complex elbow fractures.

Can a single question replace patient-reported outcomes in the follow-up of elbow arthroplasty? A validation study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the results after elbow arthroplasty it is essential to gather patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the acquisition of PROMs poses a challenge because of potential low literacy, lengthiness and diversity of questionnaires, and questionnaire fatigue. Instead of a questionnaire, patient-reported outcomes can be collected using a single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE), the subjective elbow value (SEV). The aim of this pilot study is to assess the correlation between the SEV and conventionally used patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after elbow arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SEV was added to our follow-up system in 2021, consisting of a scale from 0 to 10 in which the patients are asked to rate the overall functionality of their elbow, 0 corresponds to very poor functionality and 10 to a perfectly functional or healthy elbow. All patients who underwent elbow arthroplasty (total or radial head) and responded to the SEV question were retrospectively identified and included. The correlation between the SEV at the final follow-up and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and between the SEV and the Quick Disbailities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (quickDASH) score was assessed using Pearson's r. RESULTS: In total, 82 patients responded to the SEV question and were included in the study, with a median follow-up of 5 years [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7]. Of these patients, 17 (21%) underwent radial head arthroplasty and 65 (79%) total elbow arthroplasty. The Pearson's r for the correlation between SEV and OES was 0.502 (p < 0.001) and between the SEV and the QuickDASH -0.537 (p < 0.001), which correspond to a moderate correlation. CONCLUSIONS: The SEV shows a moderate correlation with conventional PROMs, demonstrating its potential in simplifying the follow-up of elbow arthroplasty, possibly decreasing time, costs, and patients' questionnaire fatigue compared with conventional PROM questionnaires. EVIDENCE LEVEL: III.

Controversies in the Management of Bicolumnar Fractures of the Distal Humerus.

Bicolumnar fractures of the distal humerus pose numerous treatment challenges for upper-extremity surgeons. Although open reduction and internal fixation demonstrates advantages compared with nonsurgical treatment, restoration of osseous anatomy can be difficult, particularly for comminuted, intra-articular fractures. Despite well-recognized complications, total elbow arthroplasty remains an option for elderly patients with fractures not amenable to fixation. Although indications remain controversial, distal humerus hemiarthroplasty has emerged as a potential alternative to total elbow arthroplasty in carefully selected patients with nonreconstructable fractures. Numerous controversies remain with respect to the management decisions for these complex injuries, including the optimal surgical approach, management of the ulnar nerve, and ideal fixation constructs for open reduction internal fixation. Our purpose is to review the management of bicolumnar distal humerus fractures in adult patients and discuss current controversies related to treatment.

Intraoperative modification of total elbow arthroplasty implants.

BACKGROUND: Modification of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) implants may be necessary in selected patients with substantial anatomic bone deformity or those undergoing revision surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence and consequences of implant modifications during TEA at our institution. We hypothesized that TEA implant modification would be more common in revisions than in primary replacements, and that it would not be associated with worse clinical outcomes or increased rates of radiographic or surgical complications directly related to the implant modification. METHODS: Elbows that had undergone TEA by any of 3 surgeons at our institution with use of intraoperative implant modification between January 1992 and October 2019 were retrospectively reviewed for the type of modification and complications. Complications were classified as definitely related, probably related, possibly related, or nonrelated to the implant's modification according to the consensus review by the 3 senior surgeons. A survey was sent out to surgeons outside of our institution to investigate whether intraoperative modification to TEA implants is a common clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 106 implant components were modified during 94 of 731 TEA procedures (13%) in 84 of 560 patients. Implant modifications were performed in 60 of 285 revision cases (21%) compared with 34 of 446 (8%) primary cases (P < .0001). These included shortening the stem in 40 (44%), bending the stem in 16 (15%), notching the stem in 16 (15%), tapering the stem in 9 (9%), and a combination of 2 or more of these modifications in 19 implants (17%). Among the 55 index surgeries available for complication analysis, 40 complications occurred in 28 index surgeries (11 primary and 17 revisions; 25 patients), making the overall complication rate 51%. Of these 40 complications, 23 were considered independent of any implant modification. Of the remaining 17 complications, 9 were considered nonrelated to the implant modification, 6 were possibly related, and 2 were probably related to the implant modification. Therefore, the complication rate possibly related or probably related to implant modification was 15% (8 of 55). No complication was classified as definitely related to the implant modification. No implant breakage or malfunction occurred after any modification. A total of 442 survey responses were received representing 29 countries, of which 144 surgeons (39%) performed modification to implants during TEA procedures. DISCUSSION: This study confirmed our hypothesis that modification of TEA implants is not uncommon at our institution, particularly in revision arthroplasty. Surgeons should keep in mind that complications possibly related or probably related to implant modification were at minimum 15% and could have been as high as 30% if the patients lost to follow-up had all had complications. Implant modification may be necessary in some cases but should be exercised with thoughtful consideration and caution.

Comparison of total elbow arthroplasty complications between various surgical indications at 90-day and 1-year follow-up in 1600 elbows.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) was traditionally a mainstay of treatment for patients with severe inflammatory arthritis. Recently, the indications for TEA have expanded, and TEA has grown into a versatile procedure that can be used to treat several pathologies of the elbow. The objective of this study was to compare complication rates between TEAs performed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), fracture (FX), or osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease [DJD]). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the MUExtr data set of the PearlDiver national database was performed. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes were used to identify patients who underwent TEA from 2010-2020 and to separate them into RA, FX, and DJD cohorts. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and hospital data were identified and compared using analysis of variance. Systemic complications at 90 days and surgical complications at both 90 days and 1 year were compared using multivariable logistic regression. Surgical complications included wound dehiscence, hematoma, deep infection, periprosthetic FX, stiffness, instability, triceps injury, nerve injury, and need for revision. RESULTS: We identified 1600 patients (DJD, 38.9%; FX, 48.8%; and RA, 12.3%). The majority of patients in all 3 cohorts were female patients, with the RA group having a significantly higher percentage of female patients than the FX and DJD groups (87.3% vs. 81.4% and 76.9%, respectively; P = .003). No significant differences in systemic complications and surgical complications were noted between all 3 groups at 90 days postoperatively. After controlling for patient factors, FX patients were more likely to have elbow stiffness (odds ratio, 1.53; P = .006) and less likely to have a triceps injury (odds ratio, 0.26; P < .001) at 1 year than were RA or DJD patients. CONCLUSION: The indications for TEA have expanded over the past 10 years, with nearly half of all cases being performed for FX. At 1 year postoperatively, TEAs performed for FX have a significantly lower rate of triceps injury and higher rate of elbow stiffness than TEAs performed for other indications. This finding is important to consider when preoperatively planning, as well as when discussing expected outcomes with patients prior to surgery, especially with the expanded incidence of TEA for FX being performed over the past decade.

What factors can reduce the need for repeated revision for humeral loosening in revision total elbow arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the re-revision rate in a cohort of patients who underwent revision total elbow arthroplasty (rTEA) for humeral loosening (HL) and identify factors contributing to re-revision. We hypothesized that proportional increases in the stem and flange lengths would stabilize the bone-implant interface significantly more than a disproportional increase in stem or flange length alone. Additionally, we hypothesized that the indication for the index arthroplasty would impact the need for repeated revision for HL. The secondary objective was to describe the functional outcomes, complications, and presence of radiographic loosening after rTEA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 181 rTEAs performed from 2000-2021. We included 40 rTEAs for HL performed on 40 elbows that either required a subsequent revision for HL (10 rTEAs) or had a minimum of 2 years of clinical or radiographic follow-up. One hundred thirty-one cases were excluded. Patients were grouped based on stem and flange length to determine the re-revision rate. Patients were divided based on re-revision status into the single-revision group and the re-revision group. The stem-to-flange length (S/F) ratio was calculated for each surgical procedure. The mean length of clinical and radiographic follow-up was 71 months (range, 18-221 months and 3-221 months, respectively). RESULTS: Rheumatoid arthritis was statistically significant in predicting re-revision total elbow arthroplasty for HL (P = .024). The overall re-revision rate for HL was 25% at an average of 4.2 years (range, 1-19 years) from the revision procedure. There was a significant increase in stem and flange lengths from the index procedure to revision, on average by 70 ± 47 mm (P < .001) and 28 ± 39 mm (P < .001), respectively. In the cases of re-revision (n = 10), 4 patients underwent an excisional procedure; in the remaining 6 cases, the size of the re-revision implant increased on average by 37 ± 40 mm for the stem and 73 ± 70 mm for the flange (P = .075 and P = .046, respectively). Furthermore, the average flange in these 6 cases was 7 times shorter than the average stem (S/F ratio, 6.7 ± 2.2). This ratio was significantly different from that in cases that were not re-revised (P = .03; S/F ratio, 4.2 ± 2). Mean range of moion was 16° (range, 0°-90°; standard deviation, 20°) extension to 119° (range, 0°-160°; standard deviation, 39°) flexion at final follow-up. Complications included ulnar neuropathy (38%), radial neuropathy (10%), infection (14%), ulnar loosening (14%), and fracture (14%). None of the elbows were considered radiographically loose at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: We show that a primary diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and a humeral stem with a relatively short flange relative to the stem length significantly contribute to re-revision of total elbow arthroplasty. The use of an implant where the flange can be extended beyond one-fourth of the stem length may increase implant longevity.

Comparison of 90-day complication rates and readmissions of primary total elbow arthroplasty in elective and traumatic cases: a single center experience.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to compare the 90 day complication rates of primary Total Elbow Arthroplasty (TEA) performed for arthritis (primary-OA; rheumatoid arthritis-RA) versus those performed for distal humerus fractures (DHF). METHODS: Patients who underwent a TEA from 2015 to 2021 were identified from our institutional database and placed into cohorts based on surgical indications (TEA-OA, TEA-RA and TEA-DHF). Chart review was conducted to analyze the prevalence of complications, emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and secondary procedures in the first 90 day post-operative period. Complications included but were not limited to wound complications, hematoma, infection (superficial or deep), nerve palsy, periprosthetic fracture/failure and others. RESULTS: 49 patients who underwent TEA were included in this study: (DHF = 19, OA = 14, RA = 16). Six complications occurred within the first 90 days of surgery. There were two periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in the OA group, requiring irrigation and debridement (I & D) within the first 90 days of surgery. There were three post-operative ulnar nerve palsies and one PJI requiring I & D in the TEA-RA group. Compared to the TEA-DHF and TEA-OA groups, the RA group had higher rates of all-cause complications (p = 0.03) and nerve palsy (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences between groups in readmissions (p = 0.27) or secondary interventions (p = 0.27). CONCLUSION: The 90-day complication/readmission rates of TEA preformed for DHFs is lower than those preformed for OA and RA. These differences could be related to the underlying chronic inflammatory etiology and side effect of treatments (intraarticular steroid injection, and biologics) received by patients with arthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort Study, level IV.

Elbow arthroplasty is safe for the management of simple open distal humeral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Elbow arthroplasty (EA) is an established technique for the treatment of select distal humeral fractures, yet little data exists regarding the safety and outcome of EA in the presence of an open distal humeral fracture where the risk of periprosthetic infection is an even greater concern. We hypothesized that EA does not carry an increased risk of infection or other postoperative complications when performed for simple open distal humeral fractures. METHODS: Seventeen patients underwent total EA (n = 9) or hemiarthroplasty (n = 8) for an open distal humeral fracture. The open fracture component was classified according to the Orthopaedic Trauma Society system as "simple" or "complex." Outcome measures collected included the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range of motion, complications, and reoperations. Patients who underwent primary débridement and implantation were compared with those who underwent preliminary débridement procedures and subsequent staged arthroplasty. A systematic review of the existing literature was performed to analyze other reported cases and contextualize our findings. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 46 months (range, 12-138 months). All fractures were multifragmentary and intra-articular. Sixteen patients had a "simple" open fracture and 1 had a "complex" fracture. The overall mean MEPS was 83 (range, 30-100; standard deviation ± 17), with a mean flexion-extension arc of 96°. Patients who underwent primary débridement and implantation demonstrated a higher mean flexion arc (116° vs. 79°, P = .02) than those who underwent staged arthroplasty. The mean MEPS was not significantly different between the groups (90 vs. 78, P = .12). Complications included asymptomatic ulna component loosening (n = 1), joint instability (n = 1), and symptomatic heterotopic ossification (n = 3). There were no deep or superficial infections recorded. CONCLUSION: EA is safe and effective when performed for simple open distal humeral fractures. Primary débridement and implantation may offer functional benefits over a staged approach.

Long-term survivorship of open débridement and débridement arthroplasty for elbow arthritis: a retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: Open débridement and Outerbridge-Kashiwagi (OK) débridement arthroplasty (OK procedure) are common surgical treatments for elbow arthritis, but little is known about their long-term survivorship. The purpose of this study was to determine whether survivorship until conversion to total elbow replacement and revision surgery was better for the OK procedure compared with open débridement. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent open elbow surgical débridement (open débridement or OK procedure) between 2000 and 2015. Patients received a diagnosis of primary elbow osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, or inflammatory arthritis. A total of 320 patients underwent surgery including open débridement (n = 142) or the OK procedure (n = 178), and of these patients, 33 required secondary revision surgery (open débridement, n = 14; OK procedure, n = 19). The average time since surgery was 11.5 years (range, 5.5-21.5 years). Survivorship was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the effect of the type of procedure, index diagnosis, age, and sex on survivorship. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed survivorship rates until total elbow arthroplasty of 100.0% at 1 year, 99.3% at 5 years, and 98.5% at 10 years for open débridement and 100.0% at 1 year, 98.8% at 5 years, and 98.0% at 10 years for the OK procedure (P = .87). There was no difference in survivorship between procedures, even after adjustment for significant covariates. The rates of revision for open débridement and the OK procedure were similar, at 11.3% and 11.5%, respectively, after 10 years. Higher rates of revision surgery were observed in patients who underwent open débridement (hazard ratio, 4.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-18.17; P = .019) compared with those who underwent the OK procedure after adjustment for covariates. We performed a stratified analysis with radiographic severity as an effect modifier and showed that patients with grade 3 arthritis fared better after the OK procedure compared with open débridement in terms of survivorship until revision surgery (P = .05). However, such a difference was not found for grade 1 or grade 2 arthritis. CONCLUSION: We showed that both open elbow débridement and the OK procedure had excellent survivorship until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and are viable options in the treatment of primary elbow osteoarthritis and post-traumatic cases that could help delay the need for total elbow arthroplasty. Patients with more severe radiographic arthritis, specifically grade 3 arthritis, were less likely to require revision surgery if treated initially with the OK procedure compared with open débridement.