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.

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.

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.

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.

The Van Gorder approach for total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of the triceps during exposure for total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is critical to a successful outcome. Previously described techniques include elevating the triceps insertion from one side or leaving the triceps insertion attached and dislocating the joint. Another approach to the elbow, first described in 1933 by Willis Campbell, MD, and subsequently modified by George Van Gorder, MD, involves turning down the triceps tendon without disrupting the triceps insertion. This approach offers complete visualization of the joint and provides excellent exposure for TEA. Only the original report of the technique and a small series of patients using this technique for TEA exist in the literature. The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes of the Van Gorder approach in a large series of patients undergoing TEA. METHODS: All patients who underwent TEA from 2008 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients who underwent primary TEA performed through the Van Gorder approach with at least 6 months' follow-up were included for analysis. Patients with prior elbow surgery were excluded. Demographic data, indication for surgery, postoperative range of motion, triceps function, and need for additional surgery were recorded. Prospectively collected visual analog scale (VAS) and Global Health Quality of Life scores were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 62 years, 81% were female, and the average follow-up was 30.2 months. The most common surgical indications included inflammatory arthritis (47%), osteoarthritis (24%), and fracture (19%). Postoperatively, average elbow arc of motion was an 8°-137°. There was 1 patient (1.89%) who developed failure of their triceps extension mechanism. A total of 10 patients (19%) underwent additional elbow surgery most commonly for superficial wound complications. Preoperative VAS scores decreased significantly, starting at 3 months postoperatively (6.76 to 3.37, P < .001), and remained constant at the 12- and 24-month postoperative visits. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study evaluating the Van Gorder surgical approach to the elbow for primary TEA with an average follow-up of 32 months. Overall rates of triceps failure and reoperation are consistent with other approaches for TEA.

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

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

Complex open elbow fracture Gustilo-Anderson type IIIB treated with the primary elbow arthroplasty: A case report.

Total elbow arthroplasty as a treatment option for open elbow fracture is relatively rare described. We reported a 39 years old polytrauma patient with complex open elbow fracture (Gustilo-Anderson type IIIB). The patient presented with large soft tissues defect on dorsal part of the left elbow, ulnar palsy due to the irreparable loss of the ulnar nerve, distal triceps loss due to the complete loss of the olecranon, loss of both humeral condyles with collateral ligaments and complex elbow instability. Only few similar cases have been published. Reconstructive surgery included repetitive radical debridement, irrigation, vacuum assisted closure system therapy, external fixation, coverage of the soft tissue defect with fascia-cutaneous flap from the forearm. Four months after the injury, total elbow arthroplasty with autologous bone graft (from the proximal radius) inserted in the ulnar component, was performed. At 3 years postoperatively, the patient is able to perform an active flexion from 0° to 110° with full prono-supination. Only passive extension is allowed. The ulnar neuropathy is persistent. Patient has no signs of infection or loosening of the prosthesis.

A review of the New Zealand National Joint Registry to compare the outcomes of Coonrad-Morrey and Latitude total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow arthroplasty has traditionally been used in the treatment of inflammatory arthropathy patients. More and more, however, its use is expanding to include acute trauma and sequelae of trauma. In New Zealand, the most commonly used prosthesis is the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis, but the Latitude prosthesis has gained in popularity, with a 3-fold increase in implantation over the past 5 years. METHODS: Prospectively collected national joint registry data were used to compare the survival rates of these prostheses. Underlying diagnoses, reasons for revision, and patient-reported outcome measures, as well as patient age and exact implants used, were all recorded. Statistical analysis involved survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves and the paired Student t test. RESULTS: Over the 18-year study interval, the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis has shown consistently lower revision rates than the Latitude prosthesis. This was true for both the linked and unlinked Latitude prostheses and was not affected by radial head replacement or underlying diagnosis. In all cases, the risk of revision for the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis was reduced by at least 65% compared with the Latitude prosthesis. CONCLUSION: This study using New Zealand Joint Registry data shows a lower failure rate of the Coonrad-Morrey elbow prosthesis compared with the Latitude prosthesis. The hazard ratio for a revision procedure for the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis compared with the Latitude prosthesis was 0.28 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.55). This lower rate was evident irrespective of linkage and radial head replacement. The reason for the lower rate of revision with the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis is likely multifactorial, but perhaps when used by lower-volume surgeons, the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis may confer better implant longevity.

Outcomes of semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty performed for arthritis in patients under 55 years old.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is a treatment option for end-stage arthritis. Even though results are satisfactory for the elderly population, TEA surgery is subject to controversy in younger patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of semiconstrained TEA performed for arthritis in patients younger than 55 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1998 and 2008, 19 TEAs were implanted in 17 patients younger than 55 years (mean age, 46 years; range, 29-54 years). We assessed the indication for further surgery; range of motion; mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score; QuickDASH (short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire) score; radiolucent lines; and outcome measures that included implant survival, complications, and revisions. RESULTS: The average follow-up period was 10 years (range, 2-16 years). Average range of motion significantly improved, from 120° (range, 90°-140°) to 140° (range, 130°-155°) for flexion and from 40° (range, 0°-60°) to 25° (range, 0°-90°) for extension. The average Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 85 (range, 55-100). During the study period, 11 elbows (58%) experienced complications and 8 (42%) underwent revision. Aseptic loosening (3 ulnar and 2 bipolar) was the main indication for revision. The survivorship rate without revision was 94% at 5 years and 75% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: TEA gave satisfactory results in a younger patient population. However, a high rate of complications and revisions was observed with follow-up. Thus, TEA should be considered with caution in young patients, and other therapeutic options must be discussed.

Long-term outcomes after Instrumented Bone Preserving total elbow arthroplasty: a radiostereometric study with a minimum follow-up of 10 years.

BACKGROUND: Aseptic loosening is a main concern in elbow arthroplasty. Evaluation of implant migration using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) might increase understanding of implant loosening. Previously, 2-year RSA results of 16 Instrumented Bone Preserving (IBP) elbow prostheses showed migration of the humeral component in the first weeks but most components stabilized within 6 months postoperatively. In follow-up, the present study evaluated long-term survival, the relation between early migration and survival, and the long-term migration and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Sixteen patients who received an IBP prosthesis were prospectively followed with a median follow-up time of 136 months (range 82-165). Migration was measured using RSA. Clinical results were described using the Elbow Function Assessment (EFA), Broberg and Morrey elbow functional rating index, Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and satisfaction. RESULTS: Four patients underwent a revision within 10 years, and 2 more were planned for revision surgery after 14 years. Five patients died with their prosthesis in situ. Early migration was not associated with survival. Long-term migration patterns varied widely. Median EFA score was 58.5, Broberg and Morrey score was 50, and OES score was 32. Median VAS score for pain was 2 and that for satisfaction was 7.5. CONCLUSION: Ten-year survival of the IBP total elbow prosthesis was 75%, decreasing to 63% after 14 years of follow-up. Long-term implant failure could not be predicted by 2-year migration results in this study. Although short-term clinical results were promising, long-term outcomes worsened in all patients.

Differences in 30-day outcomes between inpatient and outpatient total elbow arthroplasty (TEA).

BACKGROUND: As the health care system in the United States shifts toward value-based care, there has been increased interest in performing total joint arthroplasty in the outpatient setting to optimize costs, outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Several studies have demonstrated success in performing ambulatory total knee and hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term outcomes and complications after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) across the inpatient and outpatient operative settings. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program database was queried to identify 575 patients undergoing primary TEA using the Current Procedural Terminology code 24363. Of this sample, 458 were inpatient and 117 were outpatient procedures. Propensity score matching using a 3:1 inpatient-to-outpatient ratio was performed to account for baseline differences in several variables-age, sex, body mass index class, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and various comorbidities-between the inpatient and outpatient groups. After matching, the rates of various short-term outcomes and complications were compared between the inpatient and outpatient groups. RESULTS: Inpatient TEA was associated with a higher rate of complications relative to outpatient TEA, including non-home discharge (14.9% vs. 7.5%, P = .05), unplanned hospital readmission (7.4% vs. 0.9%, P = .01), surgical complications (7.6% vs. 2.6%, P = .04), and medical complications (3.6% vs. 0.0%, P = .04). CONCLUSION: Outpatient TEA has a lower short-term complication rate than inpatient TEA. Outpatient TEA should be considered for patients for whom such a discharge pathway is feasible. Future research should focus on risk stratification of patients and specific criteria for deciding when to pursue outpatient TEA.

Digastric olecranon osteotomy a new approach to the elbow: retrospective study of 24 Coonrad-Morrey® total elbow arthroplasty at 30-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Digastric olecranon osteotomy approach allows an excellent articular exposure and preserves principal vascular supply and the continuity of the extensor apparatus. The aim of this study was to assess the early clinical and radiological outcome after total elbow arthroplasty implanted from a digastric olecranon osteotomy approach. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 22 patients (two men and twenty women) treated with 24 Coonrad-Morrey® total elbow arthroplasty implanted from a digastric olecranon osteotomy approach in Island of France (Paris, Argenteuil and Saint-Denis). The mean age was 80 years (50-96). We treated 20 fractures; according to AO classification, seven patients suffered from a C1 fracture, seven from a C3 and C2, two from malunions, and four from rheumatoid arthritis. The mean time of follow-up was 30 months (6-132). Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Mayo elbow performance score. We evaluated triceps strength and radiographic healing. RESULTS: At the latest follow-up, the average flexion arc was 23° (5°-50°) to 112° (95°-130°). The Mayo elbow performance score averaged 92 points (75-100). The mean strength of the triceps in extension and flexion was, respectively, 1.9 and 4.7 kgs. All elbows were stable. A single immediate post-operative wound infection was reported and did not require any surgical revision. Radiological consolidation of the olecranon osteotomy was assessed in sixteen patients between 8 and 16 weeks. Heterotopic ossifications were noted in one elbow. One patient had an elbow dislocation by fracture of the axe's component. CONCLUSION: The early clinical and radiological outcomes are promising and support the use of digastric olecranon osteotomy for the implantation of total elbow arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Treatment study, level IV.

Elbow Arthroplasty: From Normal to Failure.

Total elbow arthroplasty is currently an established surgical treatment for several pathologies of the elbow. Although initially used primarily in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, indications for total elbow arthroplasty have expanded and now include trauma, primary and secondary osteoarthritis, fracture nonunion, and following neoplasm resection. Desired outcomes of elbow arthroplasty include decreasing patient pain, restoration of function and mobility, and prevention of or treatment for instability. In comparison with total elbow arthroplasty, radial head replacements are most commonly performed following trauma. An additional technique, capitellar resurfacing arthroplasty, was developed in an effort to prevent early-onset osteoarthritis secondary to altered elbow biomechanics following radial head replacement. Complications of these surgeries include loosening, fracture, instability and dissociation, bushing wear, and particle disease.