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.

Total elbow arthroplasty in England.

Aims: The aim of this study was to review the provision of total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) in England, including the incidence, the characteristics of the patients and the service providers, the types of implant, and the outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the primary TEAs recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) between April 2012 and December 2022, with mortality data from the Civil Registration of Deaths dataset. Linkage with Hospital Episode Statistics-Admitted Patient Care (HES-APC) data provided further information not collected by the NJR. The incidences were calculated using estimations of the populations from the Office for National Statistics. The annual number of TEAs performed by surgeons and hospitals was analyzed on a national and regional basis. Results: A total of 3,891 primary TEAs were included. The annual incidence of TEA was between 0.72 and 0.82 per 100,000 persons before 2020 and declined to 0.4 due to a decrease in elective TEAs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a slight recovery in 2022. Older patients, those of white ethnicity and females, were more likely to undergo TEA. Those who underwent elective TEA had a median wait of between 89 (IQR 41 to 221) and 122 days (IQR 74 to 189) in the years before 2021, and this increased to 183 days (IQR 66 to 350) in 2021. The number of TEAs performed by surgeons per annum remained unchanged, with a median of two (IQR 1 to 3). The median annual number of TEAs per region was three to six times higher than the median annual case load of the highest volume hospital in a region. Patients in the lowest socioeconomic group had a higher rate of serious adverse events and mortality (11%) when undergoing TEA for acute trauma. Conclusion: In England, TEA is more common in older age groups, those of white ethnicity, and females. The COVID-19 pandemic affected the incidence of elective TEA and waiting times, and the provision of TEA has not yet recovered. The Getting it Right First Time recommendation of centralizing services to one centre per region could result in up to a six-fold increase in the number of TEAs being performed in some centres.

Core Outcome Domains for Elbow Replacement (CODER).

Aims: A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement. Methods: A real-time Delphi survey was conducted over four weeks using outcomes from a scoping review of 362 studies on elbow replacement published between January 1990 and February 2021. A total of 583 outcome descriptors were rationalized to 139 unique outcomes. The survey consisted of 139 outcomes divided into 18 domains. The readability and clarity of the survey was determined by an advisory group including a patient representative. Participants were able to view aggregated responses from other participants in real time and to revisit their responses as many times as they wished during the study period. Participants were able to propose additional items for inclusion. A Patient and Public Inclusion and Engagement (PPIE) panel considered the consensus findings. Results: A total of 45 respondents completed the survey. Nine core mandatory domains were identified: 'return to work or normal daily role'; delivery of care was measured in the domains 'patient satisfaction with the outcome of surgery' and 'would the patient have the same operation again'; 'pain'; 'revision'; 'elbow function'; 'independence in activities of daily living'; 'health-related quality of life'; and 'adverse events'. 'Elbow range of motion' was identified as important by consensus but was felt to be less relevant by the PPIE panel. The PPIE panel unanimously stated that pain should be used as the primary outcome domain. Conclusion: This study defined core domains for the clinical outcomes of elbow replacement obtained by consensus from patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Pain may be used as the primary outcome in future studies, where appropriate. Further work is required to define the instruments that should be used.

Management of the infected total elbow arthroplasty.

Periprosthetic joint infection represents a devastating complication after total elbow arthroplasty. Several measures can be implemented before, during, and after surgery to decrease infection rates, which exceed 5%. Debridement with antibiotics and implant retention has been reported to be successful in less than one-third of acute infections, but still plays a role. For elbows with well-fixed implants, staged retention seems to be equally successful as the more commonly performed two-stage reimplantation, both with a success rate of 70% to 80%. Permanent resection or even amputation are occasionally considered. Not uncommonly, a second-stage reimplantation requires complex reconstruction of the skeleton with allografts, and the extensor mechanism may also be deficient. Further developments are needed to improve our management of infection after elbow arthroplasty.

Failed radial head arthroplasty treated by removal of the implant.

Aims: In patients with a failed radial head arthroplasty (RHA), simple removal of the implant is an option. However, there is little information in the literature about the outcome of this procedure. The aim of this study was to review the mid-term clinical and radiological results, and the rate of complications and removal of the implant, in patients whose initial RHA was undertaken acutely for trauma involving the elbow. Methods: A total of 11 patients in whom removal of a RHA without reimplantation was undertaken as a revision procedure were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 8.4 years (6 to 11). The range of motion (ROM) and stability of the elbow were recorded. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The functional outcome was assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH). Radiological examination included the assessment of heterotopic ossification (HO), implant loosening, capitellar erosion, overlengthening, and osteoarthritis. Complications and the rate of further surgery were also recorded. Results: The indications for removal of the implant were stiffness in five patients, aseptic loosening in five, and pain attributed to the RHA in three. The mean time interval between RHA for trauma to removal was ten months (7 to 21). Preoperatively, three patients had overlengthening of the implant, three had capitellar erosion, six had HO, and four had radiological evidence of loosening. At the final follow-up, the mean the flexion-extension arc improved significantly by 38.2° (95% CI 20 to 59; p = 0.002) and the mean arc of prono-supination improved significantly by 20° (95% CI 0 to 72.5; p = 0.035). The mean pain VAS score improved significantly by 3.5 (95% CI 2 to 5.5; p = 0.004). The mean MEPS improved significantly by 27.5 (95% CI 17.5 to 42.5; p = 0.002). The mean OES improved significantly by 9 (95% CI 2.5 to 14; p = 0.012), and the mean DASH score improved significantly by 23.5 (95% CI 7.5 to 31.6; p = 0.012). Ten patients (91%) had HO and osteoarthritis. Two patients underwent further surgery due to stiffness and pain, respectively. Conclusion: Simple removal of the implant at revision surgery following a failed RHA introduced following trauma provides satisfactory mid-term results with an acceptable risk of complications. Osteoarthritis, instability, and radioulnar impingement were not problems in this series.

Uncementing the status quo: systematic review of a loose-fit, polished stem radial head prosthesis shows stable clinical results in complex elbow injuries with a concomitant radial head fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting the optimal radial head prosthesis to treat radial head fractures, especially in the context of complex elbow injuries like terrible triad, Monteggia, and Essex Lopresti, can be challenging, as there is currently no consensus in the field that favors a particular design. This study investigated the safety and performance of a Polished Stem Radial Head Prosthesis (PS RHP) compared to other modern RHP designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to capture data on a Polished Stem Radial Head Prosthesis (PS RHP) and other Radial Head Prostheses (RHPs). Functional scores, range of motion, complications, and revisions were extracted from published literature and analyzed in parallel with the percentage of complex injuries. Comparison of functional outcomes between groups were based on minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs). RESULTS: There were 16 articles reporting on 711 cases of the PS RHP and 23 articles reporting on 605 cases of other RHPs included in the systematic literature review. Functional scores and range of motion were similar amongst the groups. The PS RHP design achieved a comparable revision rate as other RHPs despite a higher number of terrible triad injuries. Notably, the PS RHP group showed a significantly lower rate of instability (1.0%) than other RHPs (3.4%) (p < 0.05). Other complication rates were similar amongst the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The PS RHP group had higher rates of terrible triads at baseline compared to the other RHPs group. Regardless of greater injury complexity, the clinical outcomes of the PS RHP group were favorable and resulted in a significantly lower rate of postoperative instability as compared to other RHPs.

Elbow kinematics with increased lengthening of a radial head arthroplasty evaluated with dynamic radiostereometric analysis.

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the kinematics of the elbow following increasing length of the radius with implantation of radial head arthroplasties (RHAs) using dynamic radiostereometry (dRSA). Methods: Eight human donor arms were examined by dRSA during motor-controlled flexion and extension of the elbow with the forearm in an unloaded neutral position, and in pronation and supination with and without a 10 N valgus or varus load, respectively. The elbows were examined before and after RHA with stem lengths of anatomical size, + 2 mm, and + 4 mm. The ligaments were maintained intact by using a step-cut lateral humeral epicondylar osteotomy, allowing the RHAs to be repeatedly exchanged. Bone models were obtained from CT scans, and specialized software was used to match these models with the dRSA recordings. The flexion kinematics of the elbow were described using anatomical coordinate systems to define translations and rotations with six degrees of freedom. Results: The greatest kinematic changes in the elbows were seen with the longest, + 4 mm, implant, which imposed a mean joint distraction of 2.8 mm in the radiohumeral joint and of 1.1 mm in the ulnohumeral joint, an increased mean varus angle of up to 2.4° for both the radius and the ulna, a mean shift of the radius of 2.0 mm in the ulnar direction, and a mean shift of the ulna of 1.0 mm posteriorly. Conclusion: The kinematics of the elbow deviated increasingly from those of the native joint with a 2 mm to a 4 mm lengthening of the radius. This confirms the importance of restoring the natural length of the radius when undertaking RHA.

Accuracy of Implant Placement Based on Three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning in Total Elbow Arthroplasty.

Background: Accurate implant placement in the optimal position is important to obtain favourable clinical outcomes and prevent complications in total joint arthroplasty. We aimed to assess the accuracy of implant placement based on three-dimensional (3D) preoperative planning for unlinked total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and to clarify the effect of implant placement on clinical outcomes. Methods: This study included 20 patients (22 elbows, 17 with rheumatoid arthritis and 5 with osteoarthritis, with a mean follow-up period of 47 months) who underwent TEA with an unlinked-type implant after computed tomography (CT)-based 3D preoperative planning. Implant placement was planned preoperatively and several parameters were set to reflect it intraoperatively. TEA was performed based on the plan, and postoperative CT was conducted to evaluate differences in implant placement by comparing the preoperative plan and postoperative implant placement. Furthermore, we evaluated the relationship between implant placement differences and postoperative clinical outcomes, including range of motion, Visual Analogue Scale, Mayo Elbow Performance Score 1 year after surgery and complications at the last follow-up. Results: The mean absolute translation was within 2 mm, the mean absolute tilt was within 4°, the mean absolute rotation of the humeral component was within 4° and the mean absolute rotation of the ulnar component was 10.2° ± 6.8°. In the ulnar components, 15/22 (68%) cases were externally rotated, and the mean external rotation was 7.1° ± 10.2°. We defined the absolute ulnar component's rotational difference of more than 10° as a 'malrotation' group (n = 8) and 10° or less as a 'control' group (n = 14). We compared the clinical outcomes between both groups, however, no significant differences were observed in clinical outcomes and complications. Conclusions: We observed notable malrotation in the postoperative positioning of the ulnar component. Intraoperative support devices may be necessary to accurately reproduce the preoperative plan in the surgical field. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic).

Total elbow arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of distal humerus fractures in the elderly: Experience from a tertiary referral centre.

BACKGROUND: There is no clear consensus on whether total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA) is superior for treating distal humerus fractures in the elderly. This study analysed the functional outcomes and re-operation rates following TEA and HA for intra-articular distal humerus fractures in patients aged ≥65 years. METHODS: 19 patients (TEA = 12, HA = 7) treated between 2016 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Mean age was 73 years and mean follow-up was 46 months. Functional outcomes and quality of life were assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Quick-DASH (Q-DASH), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), SF-12 Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS), and EQ-5D. Complications requiring re-operation were recorded. RESULTS: HA showed superior outcomes in MEPS (93.6 vs 75.0, p = 0.0339), Q-DASH (13.3 vs 31.3, p = 0.0182), OES (41.7 vs 33.2, p = 0.0346), SF-12 PCS (55.5 vs 36.9, p = 0.0008) and EQ-5D (83 vs 67, p = 0.0023). One HA patient required revision to TEA for prosthetic joint infection. One TEA patient required revision for a periprosthetic ulna fracture. CONCLUSION: HA provides better functional outcomes compared to TEA in the treatment of distal humerus fractures in the elderly. Data is limited by selection bias and low patient numbers with a multicentre randomised controlled trial warranted.

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.

Total elbow replacement in England: a protocol for analysis of National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics data.

INTRODUCTION: Primary total elbow replacement (TER) services in England are being restructured with the goal of centralising care to specialised centres. It is important to monitor the impact of this service redesign. This protocol outlines an intended analysis to provide detailed descriptions of the patients who are receiving primary TER, where and by whom TER is being performed, and what the current surgical practices for TER are in England before the reconfiguration. METHODS: This analysis will use the National Joint Registry (NJR) elbow dataset and link it with NHS England Hospital Episode Statistics-Admitted Patient Care (HES-APC). It will include eligible patients from the start of the NJR elbow dataset in April 2012 to December 2022. The main objective is to determine the incidence of TER in England. Age-sex standardised rates will be calculated for groups including different ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, using the mid-year population data provided by the Office for National Statistics. This planned analysis will summarise patient characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hand dominance, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for TER, socioeconomic status, and patient co-morbidities. It will also examine implant fixation type, classification, brand/type, and changes over time in implant types used in England. Additionally, it will explore the characteristics and volume of the surgeons and hospitals providing primary TER services, including the grade of the primary surgeons, funding source for surgery, and admission type. The analysis will cover the number of procedures performed by surgeons and hospitals annually in England and in each region of England. Finally, the planned analysis will summarise the elective wait time, postoperative length of stay, and any serious adverse events or re-admissions within 30 and 90 days after the TER. DISCUSSION: This protocol describes the first deep dive analysis into the NJR elbow dataset to describe the incidence of TER surgery in England and the characteristics of patients who are receiving it. This analysis will summarise current primary TER practices in England before service reconfigurations. The impact of reconfiguration can be monitored by comparing future practice to the outcomes from this study. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06355011. Registered 02 April 2024, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06355011 .

Influence of Training Background on Elbow Arthroplasty Case Numbers: An Analysis of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Oral Examination Case List Database.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of training background on the frequency and indications of elbow arthroplasty performed by early-career surgeons. METHODS: A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Oral Examination Case List database from 2010 to 2021 was completed. The number of cases performed by surgeons from each individual training background were calculated and compared with the total number of surgeons who completed each fellowship during the study period. RESULTS: Hand surgeons performed the most elbow arthroplasty cases (132, 44%), but a higher percentage of shoulder/elbow surgeons performed elbow arthroplasty in comparison (15% vs. 7%). The mean number of TEA cases performed by shoulder/elbow surgeons was significantly higher than in other subspecialties (P < 0.01). However, when comparing only surgeons who performed elbow arthroplasty during the board collection period, there was no significant difference between training backgrounds (P = 0.20). DISCUSSION: While hand surgeons performed the most elbow arthroplasty cases, a higher percentage of shoulder/elbow surgeons performed elbow arthroplasty during the study period. The high prevalence of distal humerus fracture as an indication for arthroplasty reflected a shift in indications and was not related to training background.

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.

[Elbow hemiarthroplasty for coronal shear fractures of the distal humerus]. / Ellenbogenhemiprothese bei koronaren Abscherfrakturen des distalen Humerus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the operation is to replace the articular surface of the distal humerus in cases of nonreconstructible fractures of the distal humerus. INDICATIONS: Active patients with high functional requirements, in whom weight limitation of total elbow arthroplasty should be avoided. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Contraindications include fractures with irreconstructible epicondyles and/or irreconstructible collateral ligaments, as well as ulnohumeral, or radiohumeral osteoarthritis. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Following subcutaneous anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve, surgical dislocation of the elbow joint is achieved through a paratricipital approach with release of the soft tissue structures from the humerus. After resection of the trochlea, the intramedullary canal of the humerus is prepared using rasps in order to implant the hemiprosthesis with retrograde cementing. Finally, the medial and lateral collateral ligaments as well as the flexors and extensors are repaired. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Early functional rehabilitation in a hinged elbow orthosis while avoiding varus/valgus stress after wound healing is completed. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2022, 18 patients with coronal shear fractures were treated with elbow hemiarthroplasty. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 79 (70-95) after a mean follow-up of 12 months. The mean range of motion was 99° (70-130°) in extension-flexion and 162° (90-180°) in pronation-supination.

[Technical modifications to elbow interposition arthroplasty]. / Technische Modifikation der Interpositionsarthroplastik des Ellenbogens.

OBJECTIVE: Interposition arthroplasty of the elbow involves the interposition of a fascia lata or dermis autograft or allograft between the distal humerus and the ulna or radius, while preserving the original form of articulation. INDICATIONS: Interposition arthroplasty is indicated for young patients with high functional demands who suffer from end-stage elbow arthritis and associated pain or joint stiffness. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Contraindications include acute or subacute infection, skeletal immaturity, bone loss, deformity, or gross instability. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Once the ulnar nerve has been secured, joint access is established via a posterior approach. The radial collateral ligament (RCL) and the common extensor tendon origin (CEO) are detached, while preserving the anconeus muscle and the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL). Subsequently, a capsular release is required to maintain adequate joint exposure and address the accompanying stiffness. Three to four transosseous drill holes are placed at the level of the distal humerus to secure the graft. After the graft has been positioned successfully within the joint space using two guide sutures, it can be secured to the distal humerus using a horizontal mattress stitch. Finally, the detached tendon and ligament structures are reconstructed. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: After initial immobilization, early functional exercise of the elbow is performed in the motion orthosis, avoiding valgus or varus stress. RESULTS: The efficacy of elbow interposition arthroplasty has been demonstrated, particularly for young and active patients with severe inflammatory or post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Despite the results in terms of postoperative function and pain reduction are satisfactory, the current literature reports high complication, subsequent treatment, and revision rates. In the event of interposition arthroplasty failure, revision with another interposition procedure or conversion to endoprosthesis may be considered.

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.

Stress shielding following radial head arthroplasty: the impact of preoperative bone quality.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess if the medullary diameter to cortical width ratio (MD:CW), canal flair index (CFI), and canal fill (CF) of the proximal radius were associated with the presence of stress shielding (SS) after a MoPyC radial head arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, international, multicenter (4 centers) study. A total of 100 radial head arthroplasties in 64 women and 36 men with a mean age of 58.40 years ± 14.90 (range, 25.00-91.00) were included. Radiographic measurements, including MD:CW, CFI, CF, and postoperative SS were captured at a mean follow-up of 3.9 years ± 2.8 (range, 0.5-11). RESULTS: SS was identified in 60 patients. Mean preoperative MD:CW, CFI, and CF were 0.55 ± 0.09, 1.05 ± 0.18, and 0.79 ± 0.11, respectively. The presence of SS was significantly associated with MD:CW (adjusted odds ratio = 13.66; P = .001), and expansion of the stem (adjusted odds ratio = 3.78; P = .001). The amount of the SS was significantly correlated with expansion of the stem (aß 4.58; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that MD:CW was an independent risk factor of SS after MoPyc radial head arthroplasty. Autoexpansion of the MoPyc stem significantly increased the risk of SS and its extent. Further studies involving multiple implants designs are needed to confirm the preliminary observations presented in the current study.

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.

Complications of antibiotic cement spacers used for elbow infections.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic cement spacers have been widely used in the treatment of joint infections. There are no commercially available antibiotic spacers for the elbow. Instead, they are typically fashioned by the surgeon at the time of surgery using cement alone or a combination of cement with sutures, Steinmann pins, external fixator components, or elbow arthroplasty components. There is no consensus regarding the ideal elbow antibiotic spacer and no previous studies have examined the complications associated with these handmade implants in relation to their unique structural design. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 55 patients who had 78 static antibiotic cement spacers implanted between January 1998 and February 2021 as part of a 2-stage treatment plan for infection of an elbow arthroplasty, other elbow surgery, or primary elbow infection. Several antibiotic spacer structures were used during the study period. For analysis purposes, the spacers were classified into linked and unlinked spacers based on whether there was a linking mechanism between the humerus and the ulna. Complications related to these spacers that occurred either during the implantation, between implantation and removal, or during removal were recorded and analyzed from chart review and follow-up x rays. Reoperations due to spacer-related complications were also recorded. RESULTS: Among the 55 patients (78 spacers), there were 23 complications, including 17 minor and 6 major complications. The most common complication of unlinked spacers (intramedullary [IM] dowels, beads and cap spacer) was spacer displacement. Other complications included IM dowel fracture and difficulty locating beads during spacer removal. The major complications of linked cement spacers included two periprosthetic humerus fractures after internal external fixator cement spacers and re-operation due to breakage and displacement of one bushing cement spacer. The major complications of unlinked cement spacers included two reoperations due to IM dowel displacement and one reoperation due to displacement of beads. Among patients who had removal of all components and those with native joints, there was no statistically significant difference between internal external fixator cement spacers and unlinked cement spacers in minor complication rates (30% vs. 16%, P = .16), major complication rates (7% vs. 8%, P = .85) and reoperation rates (0% vs. 8%, P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Static handmade antibiotic elbow spacers have unique complications related to their structural designs. The most common complication of linked and nonlinked cement spacers were failure of the linking mechanism and displacement, respectively. Surgeons should keep in mind the possible complications of different structures of cement spacers when choosing 1 antibiotic spacer structure over another.