Short-term clinical results of revision elbow arthroplasty using the Latitude total elbow arthroplasty

Elbow hemiarthroplasty and total elbow arthroplasty provided a similar functional outcome for unreconstructable distal humeral fractures in patients aged 60 years or older: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is an established treatment for elderly patients with distal humeral fractures not amenable to stable internal fixation (unreconstructable). In recent years, there has been increasing interest in elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA), a treatment option which does not entail restrictions on weight-bearing as opposed to TEA. These 2 treatments have not been compared in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcome of EHA and TEA for the treatment of unreconstructable distal humeral fractures in elderly patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). Patients were included between January 2011 and November 2019 at one of 3 participating hospitals. The inclusion criteria were an unreconstructable distal humeral fracture, age ≥60 years and independent living. The final follow-up took place after ≥2 years. The primary outcome measure was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score. Secondary outcome measures were the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the EQ-5D index, range of motion (flexion, extension, pronation, and supination) and grip strength.

RESULTS

Forty patients were randomized to TEA (n = 20) and EHA (n = 20). Five patients died before completing the final follow-up, leaving 18 EHA and 17 TEA patients for analysis. There were 31 women. The mean age was 74.0 (SD, 8.5) years in the EHA group and 76.9 (SD, 7.6) in the TEA group (P = .30). The mean DASH score was 21.6 points in the EHA group and 27.2 in the TEA group (P = .39), a difference of -5.6 points (95% CI: -18.6 to 7.5). There were no differences between treatment with EHA and TEA for the mean values of the MEPS (85.0 vs. 88.2, P = .59), EQ-5D index (0.92 vs. 0.86, P = .13), extension (29° vs. 29°, P = .98), flexion (126° vs. 136°, P = .05), arc of flexion-extension (97° vs. 107°, P = .25), supination (81° vs. 75°, P = .13), pronation (78° vs. 74°, P = .16) or grip strength (17.5 kg vs. 17.2 kg, P = .89). There were 6 adverse events in each treatment group.

CONCLUSION

In this RCT, both elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA) and total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) resulted in a good and similar functional outcome for unreconstructable distal humeral fractures in elderly patients at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

Outcomes of Revision Unlinked Total Elbow Arthroplasty for Rheumatoid Elbow

Background: Although unlinked total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is a treatment option for end-stage rheumatoid arthritis (RA) of the elbow, its long-term outcomes were inferior. Moreover, revision TEA could be technically challenging. The unlinked TEA procedure comprises the ease of implant removal at revision and advantage of bone preservation. This study evaluated the clinical outcomes in patients who underwent revision TEA using primary unlinked TEA for rheumatoid elbows. It also aimed to determine whether selecting the unlinked prosthesis for the primary TEA would make revision more accessible and successful. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data of 13 consecutive patients (14 elbows) who underwent revision TEAs for implant failure due to different aetiologies, excluding septic loosening. Three different unlinked TEA implants were used: the Kudo type-5 with all-polyethylene (AP) ulnar component, Kudo type-5 with metal-backed (MB) ulnar component and K-Now TEA. We evaluated the patients' pre- and postoperative outcomes, including the range of motion, pain score and Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI). Results: Among the 14 elbows, 11 were revised using the Kudo type-5 ulnar component (nine and two with AP and MB ulnar component, respectively), and three using the K-Now. We found that each model of TEA had different tendencies to indication for revision surgery. Three more resulted in further failure. The clinical outcomes were assessed in the 11 surviving elbows. Eight of the 11 elbows showed no pain at the final follow-up. However, the remaining three showed only mild pain. The MEPI revealed that seven cases were excellent, two were good and two were fair. Conclusions: The mode of implant failure was largely dependent on the implant design. Furthermore, partial revision with the same implant design was sufficient in managing implant failure in the early phase. However, conversion from unlinked to linked design could be recommended in patients with progressive failure or instability. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic).

Staged revision still works for chronic and deep infection of total elbow arthroplasty?

Purpose: Infected total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is challenging. We evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes for chronic and deep infection of TEA with two-stage revision surgery. Methods: A total of 10 elbows were included in the study. The mean age was 69.1 ± 15 years (range, 34–83 years). The mean follow-up was 62 (range, 24–108) months. The clinical outcomes were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM) arc, and Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS). Moreover, radiographic outcomes, time to revision, pathogenic bacteria, preoperative complications, and disease period were evaluated. Results: Mean preoperative VAS score of 6.1 had improved to 3.3. Mean preoperative ROM was 68° (flexion-extension), which improved to 86.7°. Mean preoperative MEPS was 46 (range, 0–70), which improved to 75.5 (range, 35–85). The mean disease duration was 8.4 months (range, 5–20 months). The most common causative organism was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The second revision rate was 80% at the final follow-up. Radiographic outcome at final follow-up showed that 3 (30%) of 10 patients exhibited radiolucency evidence around the components. Three patients showed nonprogressive radiolucency around the implant interfaces without other indications of infection at the most recent follow-up. Conclusion: In patients with chronic and deep infection of TEA, two-stage revision can be an affordable option for eradication of the infection, relieving pain, and restoring joint function. However, the high second revision rate owing to bone and soft-tissue deficits remains a critical issue.

Level of evidence: Level IV, Case series, Treatment study

Surgical management for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow

The objective of this review is to summarize the surgical options for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow, reported clinical outcomes, and suggested indications in previous literatures. The surgical management of primary elbow arthritis has evolved because of an improved understanding of pathologic mechanisms and manifestations as well as the development of novel surgical techniques and devices. Osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA), elbow debridement, distraction arthroplasty, and total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) have been employed for managing elbow osteoarthritis. Elbow debridement and OCA can be helpful in most cases of symptomatic elbow arthritis. TEA is usually recommended for end-stage arthritis in elderly patients after prosthetic implants have been in place for long periods or after complications. Distraction arthroplasty might find a place in the treatment of younger, active patients with end-stage arthritis.

Revision Total Elbow Arthroplasty with the Semiconstrained Coonrad/Morrey Prosthesis: Follow-up to 21 Years

BACKGROUND

Revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) has increased, especially in young patients with high functional expectations. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of revision TEA with a single semiconstrained prosthesis.

METHODS

Thirty-four revision TEAs were performed with a Coonrad/Morrey prosthesis in 32 patients; 2 patients had bilateral procedures. The mean patient age was 61 years (range, 22 to 76 years), and the revision TEA was performed at a mean time of 7.8 years (range, 1.6 to 21 years) after the primary TEA. Etiologies for revisions were humeral and ulnar aseptic loosening (n = 14), ulnar aseptic loosening (n = 8), humeral aseptic loosening (n = 6), septic arthritis (n = 4), and unstable unlinked prostheses (n = 2). Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed with systematic preoperative infection workup and quantification of bone loss. The mean follow-up was 11.4 years (range, 2 to 21 years).

RESULTS

The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) at the last follow-up was excellent in 6 cases, good in 18 cases, fair in 8 cases, and poor in 2 cases, with a mean improvement (and standard deviation) between the preoperative values at 42.4 ± 16.1 points and the postoperative values at 81.8 ± 12 points (p < 0.001). The mean pain scores improved significantly from 6.7 ± 1.3 points preoperatively to 1.4 ± 1.4 points postoperatively (p < 0.001). The flexion-extension arc increased significantly (p = 0.02) from 74° ± 27° preoperatively to 100° ± 31° postoperatively. The total number of complications was 29 in 19 revision TEAs (56%). Twenty of the 29 complications simply required monitoring without surgical intervention. Six repeat surgical procedures were required, and 3 implant revisions (9%) were performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision TEA with a semiconstrained prosthesis can provide good clinical results that can be maintained during follow-up. The rate of complications is high. Proper evaluation of the risk-benefit ratio is essential for each revision TEA and should be discussed with the patient.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A Clinical Comparison of Triceps-Sparing and Triceps-Detaching Approaches for Revision Total Elbow Arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Triceps-sparing (TS) approaches have been reported to provide improved triceps strength, better patient outcomes, and a lower incidence of complications in primary total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). It remains unclear whether the advantages of this approach are similar in the revision setting, especially in cases with prior triceps detachment. The purpose of this study was to compare triceps strength and clinical outcomes between TS and triceps-detaching (TD) approaches in revision TEA.

METHODS

All revision TEAs performed over a 17-year period with a minimum 1-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Elbows with preoperative triceps insufficiency or subsequent component removal for infection were excluded. Patients were grouped according to the surgical approach performed at the last revision TEA. Outcome measures included triceps strength, range of motion, visual analog scale (VAS), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores.

RESULTS

Ten TS and 6 TD elbows were evaluated. Four elbows within the TS group had documented TD surgery prior to revision. Median follow-up was longer in the TD group (137 ± 75 months vs 53 ± 20 months). Functional strength and DASH scores were significantly better in the TS group. Arc of motion, VAS, and MEPS were similar between the TS and the TD groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The TS approach preserves greater postoperative functional triceps strength after revision TEA, regardless of the type of approach used previously.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic V.

Total Elbow Arthroplasty: Clinical Outcomes, Complications, and Revision Surgery

Total elbow arthroplasty is a common surgical procedure used in the management of advanced rheumatoid arthritis, posttraumatic arthritis, osteoarthritis, and unfixable fracture in elderly patients. Total elbow prostheses have evolved over the years and now include the linked, unlinked, and convertible types. However, long-term complications, including infection, aseptic loosening, instability, and periprosthetic fracture, remain a challenge. Here, we introduce each type of implant and evaluate clinical outcomes and complications by reviewing the previous literature.

Clinical outcomes and complications following primary total elbow arthroplasty using the Latitude prosthesis

BACKGROUND

The Latitude total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is an implant with limited published data on its performance and outcomes. The aim of this study was to report the short-term outcomes of the Latitude TEA as well as to describe the radiographic outcomes and complications.

METHODS

The Latitude was implanted in 20 patients (23 elbows) in a linked configuration. Patients were recalled to clinic for the assessment of their range-of-motion and compared to preoperative values. Administration of functional outcome measures was also performed.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 4.7 years (range, 1 to 7.5 years) with four elbows requiring revision. The flexion-extension arc improved from 86.6 to 101.3 (range, 76 to 126) postoperatively (p = 0.04). The average Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 28.1 (range, 5.8 to 50.4) and the average Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 89.6 (range, 76 to 100), with 83% of elbows scoring in the good or excellent range. Radiolucencies were detected in 60% of patients and 31% of these lucencies progressed in size at the time of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The Latitude prosthesis provides patients with favorable clinical outcomes with improvements in their range-of-motion and a complication rate comparable to other elbow arthroplasty implants.

Outcomes after revision total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although revision arthroplasty surgery is a frequently used treatment for failed total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), published results are conflicting. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the outcomes of revision TEA surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in major databases to find articles relating to outcomes after revision of TEA. Two reviewers independently screened the articles for inclusion, and a third reviewer screened them before final inclusion.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles containing 532 cases were included. The mean age at revision was 61 years. The mean interval between primary and revision arthroplasty was 77 months, and the average follow-up period was 65 months. Different types of prostheses were included, with 69% of the revision prostheses having linked designs and 31% having unlinked designs. The visual analog scale score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Oxford Elbow Score, and range of motion improved significantly after revision surgery. Complications were reported in 232 of 532 cases (44%), leading to reoperations in 22%. After revision with linked prostheses, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, range of flexion-extension, and pronation improved significantly more than with unlinked designs.

CONCLUSION

Improved functional outcomes can be expected after revision TEA, but the complication rate remains high. Revision TEA should still be considered a salvage procedure for failed TEA. Linked designs for revision TEA result in better outcomes than unlinked designs in the midterm follow-up.

Mid-term results of alumina ceramic unlinked total elbow arthroplasty with cement fixation for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the mid-term clinical outcome of cemented unlinked J-alumina ceramic elbow (JACE) arthroplasties when used in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 87 elbows, in 75 patients with RA, which was replaced using a cemented JACE total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) between August 2003 and December 2012, with a follow-up of 96%. There were 72 women and three men, with a mean age of 62 years (35 to 79). The mean follow-up was nine years (2 to 14). The clinical condition of each elbow before and after surgery was assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI, 0 to 100 points). Radiographic loosening was defined as a progressive radiolucent line of >1 mm that was completely circumferential around the prosthesis.

Results

The mean MEPI scores significantly improved from 40 (10 to 75) points preoperatively to 95 (30 to 100) points at final follow-up (p < 0.0001). Complications were noted in ten elbows (ten patients; 11%). Two had an intraoperative humeral fracture which was treated by fixation and united. One had a postoperative fracture of the olecranon which united with conservative treatment and one had a radial neuropathy which resolved. Further surgery was required for one with a dislocation, three with an ulnar neuropathy and one with a postoperative humeral fracture. Revision with removal of the components was performed in one elbow due to deep infection. There was no radiographic evidence of loosening around the components.With any revision surgery or revision with implant removal as the endpoint, the rates of survival up to 14 years were 93% (95% confidence interval (CI), 83.9 to 96.6) and 99% (95% CI 91.9 to 99.8), respectively, as determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis.

Conclusion

With the appropriate indications, the mid-term clinical performance of the cemented JACE TEA is reliable and comparable to other established TEAs in the management of the elbow in patients with RA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1066–73.

Long-term results of the lateral resurfacing elbow arthroplasty

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the long-term outcome and implant survival of the lateral resurfacing elbow (LRE) arthroplasty in the treatment of elbow arthritis.

Patients and Methods

We reviewed a consecutive series of 27 patients (30 elbows) who underwent LRE arthroplasty between December 2005 and January 2008. There were 15 women and 12 men, with a mean age of 61 years (25 to 82). The diagnosis was primary hypotrophic osteoarthritis (OA) in 12 patients (14 elbows), post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) in five (five elbows) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in ten patients (11 elbows). The mean clinical outcome scores including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons elbow score (ASES-e), the mean range of movement and the radiological outcome were recorded at three, six and 12 months and at a mean final follow-up of 8.3 years (7.3 to 9.4). A one sample t-test comparing pre and postoperative values, and survival analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method were undertaken.

Results

A statistically significantly increased outcome score was noted for the whole group at each time interval. This was also significantly increased at each time in each of the subgroups (OA, RA, and PTOA). Implant survivorship was 100%.

Conclusion

We found that the LRE arthroplasty, which was initially developed for younger patients with osteoarthritis, is an effective form of surgical treatment for a wider range of patients with more severe degenerative changes, irrespective of their cause. It is therefore a satisfactory alternative to total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and has lower rates of complications in the subgroups of patients we have studied. It does not require activities to be restricted to the same extent as following TEA. Based on this experience, we now recommend LRE arthroplasty rather than TEA as the primary form of implant for the treatment of patients with OA of the elbow. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:338-45.