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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Using 3D Printing Technology to Design Split-Piece Sleeve Prosthesis in the Revision Surgery of Tumor-Type Total Elbow Prosthetic Fractures: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Revision of tumor-type prosthetic fractures is very challenging in clinical work. Traditional repair methods may not be able to meet the needs of complex cases or cause greater bone damage. Therefore, more effective and reliable solutions need to be found. CASE PRESENTATION: This study presents a novel revision technique for managing fractures of tumor-type total elbow prostheses. A 57-year-old female patient was diagnosed with a left distal humeral bone tumor accompanied by pathological fracture and underwent customized tumor-type total elbow prosthesis arthroplasty. After 5 years, she experienced pain and encountered difficulty in flexing the left elbow while lifting heavy objects. The X-ray examination revealed a fracture of the distal humeral prosthesis. As a response, the elbow joint was initially explored, and the damaged component of the prosthesis was extracted. Subsequently, we utilized 3D printing technology to design a split-piece sleeve prosthesis and effectively restored the fractured left distal humerus implant. During the 2-year follow-up, The X-ray demonstrated satisfactory positioning of the prosthesis, which remained securely affixed without any indications of loosening. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) reached 80 points, the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) attained a score of 28 points, and the range of motion of the elbow was measured between 25° and 110°, revealing favorable functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: The utilization of a 3D printed split-piece sleeve prosthesis presents a viable clinical treatment strategy for addressing fractures in tumor-type elbow prostheses.

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.

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.

Ligament Sparing Elbow Hemiarthroplasty: A Novel Technique for the Management of Distal Humeral Fractures.

Intra-articular distal humerus fractures present various challenges with a wide array of treatment options. Open reduction internal fixation remains the treatment of choice. In older patient populations with poor bone quality and short-end segment fractures with articular comminution, open reduction internal fixation, however, may bring on unsurmountable technical challenges. Total elbow arthroplasty and elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA) may offer superior functional outcomes in these cases. During EHA for fractures, the medial and lateral columns are reconstructed with the collateral ligaments to restore elbow stability. We hypothesize that in coronal sheer fracture patterns where the columns are intact, maintaining the native collateral ligaments and columns will provide both an anatomic and stable elbow joint. We introduce the ligament sparing EHA technique for unreconstructible coronal shear fractures. We describe this novel technique and compare our postoperative outcomes in 2 patients who underwent this surgery to those described in the literature. The postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores for the 2 patients were 13.8 and 10.3, respectively. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score for the 2 patients were 80 and 85, respectively. The operative arm presented a grip strength of 82% and 89% when compared with the contralateral arm, for the patients respectively. The range of motion varied between 78% and 100% of the contralateral arm for both patients. Although our results are promising and the ligament sparing EHA technique may be a more anatomic option in certain fracture patterns, further research with larger cohorts and multiple surgeons is needed to reinforce our results.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Distal humerus fracture in older patients: ORIF vs. total elbow arthroplasty.

Distal humerus fractures are a contemporary problem because the life expectancy, autonomy and functional demands of older patients continue to grow. This is combined with surgical advances in bone reconstruction, especially in fragile patients. A distal humerus fracture in an older adult is a serious injury with an uncertain prognosis. In fact, damage to the elbow joint in this complex anatomical area overwhelmed by low-quality bone occurs in patients who often have unfavorable characteristics (fragile skin, low physiological reserves, organ failure) combined with pharmaceutical treatments that can be iatrogenic. The treatment indication must not be based solely on the conventional radiographs used for classification purposes; the fracture and bone quality must be analyzed in three dimensions. Also, the surgeon must understand the patient's needs, worries and risks fully to decide between conservative treatment and anatomical locking plate fixation or elbow arthroplasty (hemi or total). In the end, the chosen treatment must allow at least 100̊ and preferably 120̊ of flexion-extension at the elbow. In this age range, the choice between arthroplasty and plate fixation is definitive; the surgical approach must make it possible to carry out either option, with arthroplasty implants available in case the trochlear fracture cannot be plated. The aim of this lecture is to provide a fresh perspective on the anatomy of the distal humerus, its fracture and the best surgical approaches, discuss how to decide on the indication, outline the safest and most reliable ways to reconstruct and stabilize the elbow, and lastly, summarize the expected outcomes and potential complications of each treatment option. Level of evidence: V; expert opinion.

Revision Arthroplasty in the Challenging Elbow.

Compared with hip and knee arthroplasty, total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) has a higher complication rate and lower survivorship. Modern TEA implants most commonly require revision due to implant loosening, infection, and periprosthetic fracture. Concerns with revision TEA include handling of the soft tissues and possible necessity of flap coverage, triceps management, preservation of bone stock, and management of concurrent infection or fracture. In this review, we will discuss preoperative evaluation of the failed elbow arthroplasty, surgical approaches, techniques for revision, outcomes, and complications following revision total elbow arthroplasty.

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.