Discovery Elbow System arthroplasty polyethylene bearing exchange: outcomes and experience.

BACKGROUND: The Discovery Elbow System (DES) utilizes a polyethylene bearing within the ulnar component. An exchange bearing requires preoperative freezing and implantation within 2 minutes of freezer removal to allow insertion. We report our outcomes and experience using this technique. METHODS: This was an analysis of a two-surgeon consecutive series of DES bearing exchange. Inclusion criteria included patients in which exchange was attempted with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Clinical and radiographic review was performed 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 years postoperative. Outcome measures included range of movement, Oxford Elbow Score (OES), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), complications and requirement for revision surgery. RESULTS: Eleven DESs in 10 patients were included. Indications were bearing wear encountered during humeral component revision (n=5); bearing failure (n=4); and infection treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR; n=2). Bearing exchange was conducted on the first attempt in 10 cases. One case required a second attempt. One patient developed infection postoperatively managed with two-stage revision. Mean follow-up of the bearing exchange DES was 3 years. No further surgery was required, with no infection recurrence in DAIR cases. Mean elbow flexion-extension and pronosupination arcs were 107° (±22°) and 140° (±26°). Mean OES was 36/48 (±12) and MEPS was 83/100 (±19). CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of DES bearing exchange in cases of bearing wear with well-fixed stems or acute infection. This series provides surgeons managing DES arthroplasty with management principles, successful and reproducible surgical techniques and expected clinical outcomes in performing DES polyethylene bearing exchange. Level of evidence: IV.

Does long-term follow-up and monitoring of primary shoulder arthroplasty identify failing implants requiring revision?

BACKGROUND: Published scoping review has identified evidence paucity related to long-term follow-up of shoulder arthroplasty. We aim to report effectiveness of elective primary shoulder arthroplasty surveillance in identifying failing implants requiring revision. METHODS: A prospective database recording shoulder arthroplasty and subsequent follow-up surveillance in a shoulder unit was analyzed. Shoulder arthroplasty was performed by 4 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons for accepted elective indications including the use of anatomic arthroplasty in arthritic shoulders with intact rotator cuff and a reverse prosthesis being used in rotator cuff-deficient shoulders and rotator cuff-competent arthritic shoulders when deemed preferable by the treating surgeon. All shoulder arthroplasty implants used had achieved a minimum 7A Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating. The included shoulder arthroplasties were performed between May 1, 2004, and December 31, 2021, with minimum 1-year follow-up. Surveillance program involves specialist physiotherapist review at 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 15 years postoperatively, including clinical examination, outcome scoring, and radiographs. Patient-initiated review occurred between time points if a patient requested assessment because of symptoms. Outcome measures include ratio of failing implants identified by surveillance and patient-initiated review, with number of surveillance reviews offered and proportion that identified a failing implant requiring revision calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1002 elective primary shoulder arthroplasty with minimum 1-year follow-up were performed (547 reverse total shoulder arthroplasty [rTSA], 234 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty [aTSA], and 221 hemiarthroplasty [HA]). A total of 238 patients died prior to December 31, 2022, resulting in 4019 surveillance appointments offered. Thirty-eight prostheses required revision ≥1 year postoperatively (6 rTSA, 9 aTSA, and 23 HA), with surveillance identifying requirement in 53% (33% rTSA, 56% aTSA, and 57% HA) and patient-initiated review in 47%. Mean years from implantation to revision was 5.2 (2.7 rTSA, 3.6 aTSA, and 6.6 HA). Revision indications included rotator cuff failure (56% aTSR and 43% HA) and glenoid erosion (57% HA). CONCLUSION: This is the first series reporting effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty surveillance in identifying implants requiring revision. Surveillance identified more than half of implants requiring revision, although only 0.5% of appointments identified revision requirement. Surveillance enrolment may influence patient-initiated review utilization; therefore, similar studies using only patient-initiated follow-up would help inform recommendations.

Improving core surgical training in a major trauma centre.

INTRODUCTION: English Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) were established in April 2012. Increased case volume and complexity has influenced trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) core surgical training in these centres. OBJECTIVES: To determine if T&O core surgical training in MTCs meets Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST) quality indicators including performance of T&O operative procedures and consultant supervised session attendance. METHODS: An audit cycle assessing the impact of a weekly departmental core surgical trainee rota. The rota included allocated timetabled sessions that optimised clinical and surgical learning opportunities. Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme (ISCP) records for T&O core surgical trainees at a single MTC were analysed for 8 months pre and post rota introduction. Outcome measures were electronic surgical logbook evidence of leading T&O operative procedures and consultant validated work-based assessments (WBAs). RESULTS: Nine core surgical trainees completed a 4 month MTC placement pre and post introduction of the core surgical trainee rota. Introduction of core surgical trainee rota significantly increased the mean number of T&O operative procedures led by a core surgical trainee during a 4 month MTC placement from 20.2 to 34.0 (p<0.05). The mean number of hip hemiarthroplasty procedures led by a core surgical trainee during a 4 month MTC placement was significantly increased (0.3 vs 2.4 [p=0.04]). Those of dynamic hip screw fixation (2.3 vs 3.6) and ankle fracture fixation (0.7 vs 1.6) were not. Introduction of a core surgical trainee rota significantly increased the mean number of consultant validated WBAs completed by a core surgical trainee during a 4 month MTC placement from 1.7 to 6.6 (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a departmental core surgical trainee rota utilising a 'problem-based' model can significantly improve T&O core surgical training in MTCs.

Arteriovenous fistula formations: key to vascular surgical training.

PURPOSE: To highlight missed training opportunities in daycase surgery for trainees to acquire competency in vascular anastomosis by performing arteriovenous fistula (AVF) formations. METHODS: Operative Room Management Information System records were reviewed for AVF procedures in daycase and general theatres at a UK Foundation Trust between 2007 and 2012. Data collected included procedure, procedure time (PT), patient length of stay (LOS), readmissions within 30 days of procedure and lead and assistant surgeons involved. RESULTS: Of 199 daycase AVF procedures reviewed, 59.3% (n=118) were brachiocephalic formations and 34.2% (n=68) radiocephalic formations. Trainees attended 41.2% of daycase AVF procedures and were lead surgeon in 7.3% of these. Mean PT was 64 minutes for consultants compared with 56 minutes for trainees, with no significant difference (p=0.297). Median patient LOS was less than 24 hours for both groups. Six daycase AVF procedures resulted in patient readmission within 30 days; five of these were operated on by consultants and one by a staff grade. During the same period, 258 AVF procedures were performed in general theatres. Trainees attended 64.3% of AVF formations performed in general theatres and were lead surgeon in 5.8% of these. CONCLUSIONS: Trainees attended and led few daycase AVF formations despite no significant difference in PT, patient LOS or readmission rate between consultant-led and trainee-led cases. Trainees attended more AVF formations performed in general theatres than daycase. However, trainees led a greater proportion of daycase AVF formations, possibly due to a less complex case mix that is more suitable for training.