Search

National registries provide useful information in understanding outcomes of surgeries that have late sequelae, especially for rare operations such as total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). A systematic search was performed and data were compiled from the registries to compare total elbow arthroplasty outcomes and evaluate trends. We included six registries from Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and Sweden. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common indication for total elbow arthroplasty, followed by acute fracture and osteoarthritis. When comparing 2000–2009 to 2010–2017 data, total elbow arthroplasty for inflammatory arthritis decreased and total elbow arthroplasty for fracture and osteoarthritis increased. There was an increase in the number of revision TEAs over this time period. The range of indications for total elbow arthroplasty is broadening; total elbow arthroplasty for acute trauma and osteoarthritis is becoming increasingly more common. However, inflammatory arthritis remains the most common indication in recent years. This change is accompanied by an increase in the incidence of revision surgery. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:215-220. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190036

Purpose Non-unions after humeral shaft fractures are seen frequently in clinical practice at about 2–10% after conservative management and 30% after surgical treatment. Non-union, displacement of structures and fixation failure can be hazardous complications. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the outcomes of an on-lay bone graft strut construction with bone chips as grafting augmentation in the management of aseptic non-unions of the humeral shaft. Methods From 124 eligible patients with a humeral shaft non-union, we included 48 patients. In all cases an anterolateral humeral approach was used, with an on-lay bone graft using an allograft strut construction and with bone substitute augmentation in the non-union gap. To assess the bone healing on radiographs, we used the non-union scoring system according to Whelan. Patients were followed with objective and subjective scores. Results In all 48 patients we achieved full bone healing without major complications. The average period of union was 124 days. In 40 cases after healing the alignment was neutral, valgus deformation occurred in 6 cases a varus deformation in 2 cases. At twelve months after surgery, all patients recovered with satisfactory range of motion of shoulder and elbow and a good quality of life, without any radial nerve palsies or other major complications. Conclusion Given the satisfactory results of full bone healing, recovery of the range of motion and the lack of major complications as seen in this study, we find that plating with supporting allograft as a good choice of treatment in the cases of aseptic non-union of the humeral shaft.

Introduction Non-union after humeral shaft fractures are seen frequently in clinical practice. The incidence is 2–10% after conservative management and up to 30% after surgical treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of plate-and-bone-strut-allograft technique with bone chip augmentation for aseptic non-unions of the distal third of the humerus. Materials and methods 26 consecutive cases were treated using a trans-triceps approach. The non-union was fixed with a 4.5 mm Locking Compression Plate combined with a strut bone allograft at the anterior part of the humerus and bone chips. All patients underwent the same rehabilitation protocol of 12 weeks. Clinical evaluation took place 12 months after surgery with the Mayo elbow score and Oxford elbow score. Results Complete bone healing without complications was achieved in all 26 patients. The average period of radiographic union was 106 days. The average range of flexion-extension was 108° (94°–180°) and pro-supination was 159° (102°–180°). Twelve months after surgery, average Mayo elbow score was 86 (68–100) and the Oxford elbow score was 83 (52–100). Conclusion The plate-and-bone-strut-allograft technique with bone chip augmentation in distal humeral shaft for aseptic non-unions resulted in union of all cases. No adverse events related to the surgery or the materials used were documented.

AIM To evaluate the effect of introducing a structured online follow-up system on the response rate. METHODS Since June 2015 we have set up an electronic follow-up system for prosthesis in orthopedic patients. This system allows prospective data gathering using both online and paper questionnaires. In the past all patients received questionnaires on paper. This study includes only patients who received elbow arthroplasty. Response rates before and after introduction of the online database were compared. After the implementation, completeness of the questionnaires was compared between paper and digital versions. For both comparisons Fisher’s Exact tests were used. RESULTS A total of 233 patients were included in the study. With the introduction of this online follow-up system, the overall response rate increased from 49.8% to 91.6% (P < 0.01). The response rate of 92.0% in the paper group was comparable to 90.7% in the online group (P > 0.05). Paper questionnaires had a completeness of 54.4%, which was lower compared to the online questionnaires where we reached full completeness (P < 0.01). Furthermore, non-responders proved to be younger with a mean age of 52 years compared to a mean age 62 years of responders (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION The use of a structured online follow-up system increased the response rate. Moreover, online questionnaires are more complete than paper questionnaires.

Background Anatomic surgical reduction of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus is important to achieve the best long-term outcomes and prevent post-traumatic arthritis. In this study we compared the radiographic reduction using the trochleocapitellar index. We also correlated the trochleocapitellar index to the functional outcomes next to the comparison of the triceps brachii lifting approach and olecranon osteotomy approach, 2 common approaches for distal humeral fractures. Methods From January 2006 to June 2016, patients with elbow fractures were registered in 4 centers. The trochleocapitellar index, a ratio between the angle of the capitellum and the trochlea to the midline of the distal humerus on anterior-posterior radiographs, was calculated for included patients. Functional outcomes were measured using the Oxford Elbow Score and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. Bone healing was measured using radiographic union scoring. Results There were 86 patients enrolled: 46 in the olecranon osteotomy group and 40 in the triceps lifting group. Functional outcomes and bone healing did not differ between the approaches. Functional results had a medium correlation with the trochleocapitellar index, which did not differ between the 2 approaches (olecranon osteotomy group, κ = 0.56; triceps lifting group, κ = 0.57; P = .7932). Conclusions The trochleocapitellar index has a moderate predictive value on the functional results after 12 months after open reduction and internal fixation of intra-articular distal humeral factures. There is no difference in reduction, as measured by trochlear index and functional outcome scores, between the olecranon osteotomy approach and the triceps brachii lifting approach groups.

Total elbow arthroplasty is a relatively uncommon type of arthroplasty, which has undergone several design changes in the past four decades. However, research on improvement requires knowledge of failure mechanisms that can be addressed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review on modes of failure of total elbow arthroplasty. We conducted searches on PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify studies describing modes of failure of primary total elbow arthroplasties. The results were coupled per type of total elbow arthroplasty and individual arthroplasty models. A total of 70 articles were included in this systematic review. 9308 individual total elbow arthroplasties were identified with 1253 revisions (13.5%). Aseptic loosening was the most prevalent reason for revision (38%), followed by deep infection (19%) and periprosthetic fractures (12%). Revision rates have been found similar to a systematic review published in 2003. The revision percentage of total elbow arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis is significantly higher than for trauma and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Aseptic loosening was seen less in linked implants. Infections and periprosthetic fractures did not differ between linkage design groups. Aseptic loosening remains the most frequent cause for revision of primary total elbow arthroplasty. Therefore, more research on the occurrence, progression and risk factors of aseptic loosening should be performed and lead to higher implant survival.

The aim of this study is to report on the midterm outcomes and complications of revision surgery of total elbow arthroplasty. All patients who had undergone total elbow arthroplasty revision surgery between 2009 and 2014 with semiconstrained total elbow prostheses were prospectively enrolled in the study. Records were reviewed for demographic data; baseline measurements; and several follow-up assessments including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, Oxford Elbow Score, range of motion, satisfaction, and radiographs. A total of 19 revision arthroplasties were included. At a mean follow-up of 57 months, there had been 1 rerevision and 2 removals. One patient was excluded from follow-up because of confounding comorbidity. At last follow-up, MEPS values and VAS pain scores both improved (P

[Introduction][1] Elbow arthroplasty is a relatively infrequent orthopaedic procedure that can be performed in multiple ways according to the type of prosthesis that is used and the needs of the individual patient. [Indications & Contraindications][2] [Step 1: Preparation and Positioning of the Patient][3] Place the patient in the lateral decubitus position or in the supine position with the arm draped, allowing for easy manipulation of the elbow during the procedure. [Step 2: Incision][4] Palpate and mark the local osseous landmarks, ulnar nerve, and incision, and then make a posterior incision to allow 360° access to the elbow joint as well as to allow decompression or transposition of the ulnar nerve. [Step 3: Approach—The Superficial Layer][5] Perform the superficial approach, including a decompression of the ulnar nerve, and properly visualize the triceps tendon attachment on the proximal part of the ulna and both epicondyles. [Step 4: Approach—The Deep Layer][6] Mobilize the triceps to allow visualization of the articular surfaces of the ulna, humerus, and radius, while taking care to protect the ulnar nerve. [Step 5: Preparation of the Osseous Structures][7] Prepare the humerus and ulna in conformance with the technique that is described for the prosthesis and take care to restore the anatomical flexion-extension axis of the elbow. [Step 6: Placement of the Prosthesis][8] When all trial components are in place, reduce the joint to test the stability of the elbow. [Step 7: Closure of the Elbow][9] When all of the definitive components of the total elbow arthroplasty are in place, close the surgical wound in layers as the anatomy is restored. [Step 8: Postoperative Care][10] After surgery, a wound dressing is applied and physical rehabilitation is started to maximize the functional outcome. [Results][11] In our study of the mid-term results of a convertible total elbow arthroplasty, based on 58 elbow arthroplasties, patients had significant improvement in range of movement, function, and pain at 6 months postoperatively[8][12]. [Pitfalls & Challenges][13] [Introduction][1] Elbow arthroplasty is a relatively infrequent orthopaedic procedure that can be performed in multiple ways according to the type of prosthesis that is used and the needs of the individual patient. [Indications & Contraindications][2] [Step 1: Preparation and Positioning of the Patient][3] Place the patient in the lateral decubitus position or in the supine position with the arm draped, allowing for easy manipulation of the elbow during the procedure. [Step 2: Incision][4] Palpate and mark the local osseous landmarks, ulnar nerve, and incision, and then make a posterior incision to allow 360° access to the elbow joint as well as to allow decompression or transposition of the ulnar nerve. [Step 3: Approach—The Superficial Layer][5] Perform the superficial approach, including a decompression of the ulnar nerve, and properly visualize the triceps tendon attachment on the proximal part of the ulna and both epicondyles. [Step 4: Approach—The Deep Layer][6] Mobilize the triceps to allow visualization of the articular surfaces of the ulna, humerus, and radius, while taking care to protect the ulnar nerve. [Step 5: Preparation of the Osseous Structures][7] Prepare the humerus and ulna in conformance with the technique that is described for the prosthesis and take care to restore the anatomical flexion-extension axis of the elbow. [Step 6: Placement of the Prosthesis][8] When all trial components are in place, reduce the joint to test the stability of the elbow. [Step 7: Closure of the Elbow][9] When all of the definitive components of the total elbow arthroplasty are in place, close the surgical wound in layers as the anatomy is restored. [Step 8: Postoperative Care][10] After surgery, a wound dressing is applied and physical rehabilitation is started to maximize the functional outcome. [Results][11] In our study of the mid-term results of a convertible total elbow arthroplasty, based on 58 elbow arthroplasties, patients had significant improvement in range of movement, function, and pain at 6 months postoperatively[8][12]. [Pitfalls & Challenges][13] [1]: #sec-14 [2]: #sec-15 [3]: #sec-18 [4]: #sec-19 [5]: #sec-20 [6]: #sec-21 [7]: #sec-22 [8]: #sec-23 [9]: #sec-24 [10]: #sec-25 [11]: #sec-26 [12]: #ref-8 [13]: #sec-27