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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Midterm outcomes allograft prosthetic composite reconstruction for massive bone loss at the elbow.

BACKGROUND: Revision of a loose total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is challenging, particularly in the context of massive bone loss (MBL). The use of an allograft prosthetic composite (APC) at the elbow is rare, typically reserved as a salvage procedure for MBL. Thus, limited data describing the outcomes of APCs are available in current literature. HYPOTHESIS: The authors hypothesize that short to midterm clinical outcomes of APC for MBL about the elbow are satisfactory. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2018, 6 APCs implanted with a semi-constrained Coonrad Morrey prosthesis were performed in 5 females and 1 male. Median patient age was 70 years (range, 49-76 years). The indication for revision was aseptic loosening in all 6 cases (6 humeral and 2 ulnar). Median follow-up was 3.5 years (range, 2-6.7 years). Functional outcomes including Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM), and radiographic outcomes were assessed for all patients. RESULTS: Median MEPS and VAS scores were 75 (range, 40-90), and 0 (range, 0-8) at latest follow-up, respectively. Median postoperative flexion-extension and prono-supination arcs were 90̊ (range, 70-140̊) and 150 (range, 100-160̊), respectively. Allograft incorporation was noted in 5 (83%) patients; all prostheses were well-fixed. In total, 4 patients (63%) experienced 5 complications (83%) including periprosthetic fracture (n=2), ulnar neuropathy (n=1), aseptic loosening (n=1), and wound dehiscence (n=1). Two (33%) required reoperation with prosthetic retention. CONCLUSION: Elbow reconstruction using allograft prosthetic composite is a viable option for patients with MBL following TEA. The midterm functional outcomes are satisfactory with no revisions required, despite a relatively high rate of complications. Further long-term studies with larger cohorts are needed to better elucidate long-term outcomes and reasons for failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; therapeutic study (case series [no, or historical, control group]).

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.

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.

A case of neuropathic arthropathy of the elbow with early loosening after total elbow arthroplasty.

We reported the case of a 65-year-old woman who presented with neuropathic arthropathy of the elbow and had undergone cervical spinal cord tumour resection at 32 years of age. Open synovectomy with free-body resection was performed; however, the instability of the elbow joint rapidly progressed. Therefore, we performed total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using a linked-type prosthesis. However, the humeral stem became severely loosened 1 year after arthroplasty. Furthermore, a periprosthetic humeral fracture developed due to a minor trauma. A revision TEA using a long-stem prosthesis was performed 4 years after the primary TEA. Radiographs taken 2 years after the revision surgery showed no evidence of implant loosening. In this case, early postoperative loosening occurred despite the use of a linked-type prosthesis and an appropriate cementing technique, suggesting that normal implants may not provide sufficient fixation for neuropathic arthropathy of the elbow. Since surgery for neuropathic arthropathy generally has a poor prognosis, surgical interventions including TEA should be carefully considered.

Postoperative management of total elbow arthroplasty: Results of a European survey among orthopedic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The number of complications after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is high and survival rates are low compared to hip and knee arthroplasties. The most common reason for revision is aseptic loosening, which might be caused by overloading of the elbow. In an attempt to lower failure rates, current clinical practice is to restrict activities for patients with a TEA. However, postoperative management of TEA is a poorly investigated topic, as no evidence-based clinical guidelines exist and the aftercare is often surgeon-based. In this study we evaluated the current postoperative management of TEA among orthopedic surgeons. METHODS: An online survey of 30 questions was sent to 635 members of the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and the Elbow (SECEC/ESSSE), about 10% (n = ± 64) of whom are considered dedicated elbow specialists. The questions were on characteristics of the surgeon and on the surgeon's preferred postoperative management, including items to be assessed on length of immobilization, amount of weight bearing and axial loading, instructions on lifelong activities, physiotherapy, and postoperative evaluation of the elbow. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 54 dedicated elbow specialists from 17 different countries. Postoperative immobilization of the elbow was advised by half of respondents when using the triceps-sparing approach (52%), and even more with the triceps-detaching approach (65%). Postoperative passive movement of the elbow was allowed in the triceps-sparing approach (91%) and in the triceps-detaching approach (87%). Most respondents gave recommendations on weight bearing (91%) or axial loading (76%) by the affected elbow, but the specification shows significant variation. CONCLUSION: The results from this survey demonstrate a wide variation in postoperative care of TEA. The lack of consensus in combination with low survival rates stresses the need for clinical guidelines. Further research should focus on creating these guidelines to improve follow-up care for TEA.

Elbow arthroplasty research methods, outcome domains, and instruments used in clinical outcome studies : a scoping review.

AIMS: Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and radiocapitellar arthroplasty, are rarely undertaken. This scoping review aims to outline the current research in this area to inform the development of future research. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries, limited to studies published between 1 January 1990 and 7 February 2021. Endnote software was used for screening and selection, and included randomized trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, and case series of ten or more patients reporting the clinical outcomes of elbow arthroplasty. The results are presented as the number of types of studies, sample size, length of follow-up, clinical outcome domains and instruments used, sources of funding, and a narrative review. RESULTS: A total of 362 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of total elbow arthroplasty (246; 68%), followed by radial head arthroplasty (100; 28%), distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (11; 3%), and radiocapitellar arthroplasty (5; 1%). Most were retrospective (326; 90%) and observational (315; 87%). The median sample size for all types of implant across all studies was 36 (interquartile range (IQR) 21 to 75). The median length of follow-up for all studies was 56 months (IQR 36 to 81). A total of 583 unique outcome descriptors were used and were categorized into 18 domains. A total of 105 instruments were used to measure 39 outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found that most of the literature dealing with elbow arthroplasty consists of retrospective observational studies with small sample sizes and short follow-up. Many outcomes have been used with many different instruments for their measurement, indicating a need to define a core set of outcomes and instruments for future research in this area.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1148-1155.

[Elbow prosthesis after acute fractures : Indications and technique]. / Ellenbogenprothese nach akuten Frakturen : Indikation und Technik.

Good to very good clinical results can be achieved in older patients with the implantation of a total elbow prosthesis in cases of distal humeral fractures by taking the morphological features of the fractures, the bone quality as well as the individual patient requirements and variables into account. The most commonly used design is the cemented semiconstrained linked total elbow endoprosthesis. The unlinked prosthesis design and hemiarthroplasty require intact or adequately reconstructable musculoligamentous structures or condyles and a preserved or replaced radial head. The recommended weight limit after total elbow prosthesis as well as potential intraoperative and postoperative complications must be considered and discussed with the patients. A secondary total elbow arthroplasty is also possible after primary conservative treatment approaches, e.g., in the case of contraindicated surgery in the fracture situation, persistent pain and functional restrictions. This article provides an overview of the technique and the appropriate indications.

Total elbow arthroplasty in elderly trauma patients: adding a new perspective for functional evaluation.

PURPOSE: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) has evolved over the last years, with satisfactory early results, mainly not only in degenerative arthritis, but also increasingly after trauma. Outcome studies in recently published papers are mainly based on the range of motion (ROM), complication rate as well as patient-reported outcome scales and questionnaires. The purpose of this study was to add a new perspective with the "Purdue Pegboard" skill tests in a homogenous set of elderly trauma patients to contribute to a more precise objective outcome measurement in this specific population. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on a consecutive cohort of all patients with age above 60 years that received TEA after trauma. Data from follow-up examinations over a standardized time-schedule within 2 years after TEA were included. Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), "Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand" (DASH) Questionnaire, ROM as well as test-scores using the Pegboard test were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean age was 76.0 years ± 10.3. Indications for TEA were posttraumatic arthrosis in 68.8% (n = 11) and extensive fractures that could not be reconstructed surgically in 31.3% (n = 5). The mean score of MEPS was 82.81 ± 16.63 and 29.18 ± 12.01 in the DASH. ROM presented with a mean of 109.7° ± 15.4. Patients demonstrated good, but marginally reduced test scores in the Pegboard skill tests in comparison with the healthy reference population. No relevant differences between the arm with and the arm without TEA (0.3 ± 3.6; p = 0.715) were noted after 2 years. CONCLUSION: In the elderly trauma patient with complex fractures of the elbow, TEA is a good alternative to joint reconstruction using various osteosynthesis techniques. TEA is able to avoid revision surgery after open reduction and internal fixation of complex fractures. In cases of failed reconstruction, it is also a viable secondary procedure in posttraumatic arthrosis. Good outcomes in functionality and dexterity can be achieved. Skill tests like the Purdue Pegboard could add a valuable perspective in assessing functional outcomes after TEA.