Revision total elbow arthroplasty failure rates: the impact of primary arthroplasty failure etiology on subsequent revisions

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Reliability analysis of radiologic and intraoperative loosening in total elbow arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revisions of total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) are commonly performed because of prosthetic loosening. UK National Joint Registry data show that TEA revisions are becoming increasingly common, with 123 TEA revisions performed in 2018 and 76 performed in 2017. TEA radiologic assessment is based on subjective interpretation with no published criteria. We defined TEA loosening by the presence of at least one of the following criteria: (1) progressive widening of the bone-cement, bone-prosthesis, or cement-prosthesis interface; (2) fragmentation or fracture of cement; (3) prosthetic component migration; and (4) bead shedding in porous-coated prostheses. Using this definition, we looked at interobserver and intraobserver agreement on radiologic loosening and compared this assessment with intraoperative findings.

METHODS

In our tertiary care center, we conducted a retrospective review to identify TEA revisions performed between November 2008 and July 2018. Radiologic implant loosening was independently assessed by 5 orthopedic surgeons. Interobserver agreement (κ coefficient) was calculated. The majority's view of radiologic loosening was compared with intraoperative findings.

RESULTS

We identified 93 sets of radiographs with implant stability clearly documented in their operative notes. The κ coefficient between assessors for humeral implant loosening was 0.87 (almost perfect). The κ coefficient for ulnar loosening was 0.75 (substantial). The κ coefficients for radiologic and intraoperative findings of humeral loosening and ulnar loosening were 0.67 and 0.71 (substantial), respectively. Intraobserver reliability was almost perfect for humeral loosening (κ = 0.86) and substantial for ulnar loosening (κ = 0.74).

CONCLUSION

Our definition of loosening provides reproducible interobserver and intraobserver agreement on radiographic component loosening. In our center's experience, radiologic findings may not translate to intraoperative findings, and we would advise that surgical strategies for TEA revision include the possibility of needing to perform a dual-implant exchange.

Is systematic 1-stage exchange a valid attitude in chronic infection of total elbow arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION

Surgical treatment for chronic infection of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) generally involves 2-stage exchange. In the lower limb, 1-stage strategies are increasingly implemented, but few cases have been reported for the elbow. We present results in a preliminary series, with the aim of: (1) assessing control of infection in systematic 1-stage exchange for chronic TEA infection, (2) detailing clinical and radiological results, and (3) analyzing intra- and post-operative complications.

HYPOTHESIS

Systematic 1-stage exchange for chronic TEA prosthetic joint infection provides satisfactory control of infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Seven non-selected patients were operated on by 1-stage exchange for chronic infection of TEA during the study period. Two died before the minimum 2 years' follow-up, from causes unrelated to the infection. Thus 5 patients (4 women, 1 man; mean age at surgery, 61 years [range: 48-69 years]) were included for analysis. At a minimum 2 years' follow-up, all underwent clinical examination and elbow X-ray. Infection was monomicrobial in 4 cases and polymicrobial in 1. Isolates comprised Staphylococcus aureus in 40% of cases (2/5), Staphylococcus epidermidis in 60% (3/5) and Staphylococcus Warneri in 20% (1/5). Three patients showed fistula. Three were under immunosuppression/immunomodulation treatment.

RESULTS

At a mean 40 months' follow-up (range: 24-60 months), 4 patients (80%) were free of infection and 1 showed signs of persistent infection. Mean range of flexion-extension was 81° (range: 60-95°) and pronation-supination 128° (range: 80-160°). Mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 75 points (range: 65-90). There were 2 intraoperative fractures and 1 neurologic deficit with partial regression.

CONCLUSION

One-stage exchange provided control of infection in 80% of cases, despite cutaneous fistulae or immunosuppression treatment. Clinical results and complications rate were similar to those reported for 2-stage exchange.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study without control group.

Thirty-day readmissions and reoperations after total elbow arthroplasty: a national database study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of short-term complications after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and identify predictors of readmission and reoperation. We hypothesized that TEA performed for acute elbow trauma would have higher rates of 30-day readmission and reoperation than TEA performed for osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program for the years 2011-2017, we identified patients undergoing TEA for fracture, OA, or inflammatory arthritis. Patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, reoperations, and readmissions within 30 days of surgery were analyzed. Potential predictors of reoperation and readmission in the model included age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, smoking, bleeding disorders, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, wound classification, operative time, and indication for surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 414 patients underwent TEA from 2011-2017. Of these patients, 40.6% underwent TEA for fracture; 37.0%, for OA; and 22.7%, for inflammatory arthritis. The overall rate of unplanned readmissions was 5.1% (21 patients). The rate of unplanned reoperations was 2.4% (10 patients). Infection was the most common reason for both unplanned readmissions and reoperations. The rates of reoperations and readmissions were not significantly associated with any of the 3 operative indications: fracture, OA, or inflammatory arthritis. Multiple logistic regression analysis found increased BMI to be associated with lower odds of an unplanned readmission (odds ratio [OR], 0.883; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.798-0.963; P = .0035) and found wound classification ≥ 3 to be associated with increased odds of an unplanned reoperation (OR, 16.531; 95% CI, 1.300-167.960; P = .0144) and total local complications (OR, 17.587; 95% CI, 2.207-132.019; P = .0057). Patients who were not functionally independent were more likely to experience local complications (OR, 4.181; 95% CI, 0.983-15.664; P = .0309) than were functionally independent patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The 30-day unplanned reoperation rate after TEA was 2.4%, and the unplanned readmission rate was 5.1%. Low BMI was predictive of readmission. Wounds classified as contaminated or dirty were predictive of reoperation. Dependent functional status and contaminated wounds were predictive of local complications. The indication for TEA (fracture vs. OA vs. inflammatory arthritis) was not found to be a risk factor for reoperation or readmission after TEA.

Intramedullary fibula strut bone allograft in a periprosthetic humeral shaft fracture with implant loosening after total elbow arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fracture after total elbow replacement surgery is a difficult complication to manage, especially when it comes together with implant loosening. If stem revision and internal fixation of the periprosthetic fracture are performed simultaneously, this would be a very challenging procedure. Most of total elbow replacement implants are cemented type. Cement usage at periprosthetic fracture site may interfere healing of fractured site. Authors underwent internal fixation with use of locking plate and cerclage wire for periprosthetic fracture, allogenous fibular strut bone inserted into the humerus intramedullary canal allowing the fractured site to be more stable without cement usage. At 10-month follow-up, the complete union and good clinical outcome was achieved. We present a novel technique for treating periprosthetic fracture with implant loosening after total elbow replacement surgery, using intramedullary allogenous fibula strut bone graft.