Allograft-prosthesis composite for revision of catastrophic failure of total elbow arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: Revision of a failed total elbow arthroplasty is a challenging procedure, often associated with bone deficiency. The purpose of this investigation was to review our experience with a composite allograft-implant reconstruction for patients with a failed total elbow arthroplasty. METHODS: Thirteen patients (thirteen elbows) in whom a total elbow arthroplasty had failed, primarily as a result of loosening of the humeral or ulnar component, were operated on with use of an allograft-prosthesis composite; the composite was placed on the humeral side in four of these patients and on the ulnar side in nine. The delay between the last total elbow arthroplasty and the allograft-prosthesis-composite procedure averaged eight years. RESULTS: At an average of forty-two months after the revision, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score was excellent for four elbows, good for three, fair for one, and poor for five. Nine of the thirteen patients had no or only slight pain in the elbow. The mean arc of flexion was 97 degrees, with an average of 28 degrees (range, 0 degrees to 60 degrees ) of extension to 125 degrees (range, 100 degrees to 140 degrees ) of flexion. There were seven complications affecting seven elbows, and five of the seven required a revision procedure. Deep infection developed in four elbows, and the allograft-prosthesis composite had to be removed from three. Two nonunions occurred at the allograft-humeral junction. CONCLUSIONS: An allograft-prosthesis composite can be a valuable option in selected patients with a failed total elbow arthroplasty with massive bone loss. The union and implant survival rates are high. Deep infection remains the main complication. Hence, we recommend the pursuit of other revision options, such as strut graft reconstruction, whenever possible before resorting to the use of an allograft-prosthesis composite in the surgical treatment of a failed total elbow arthroplasty with massive bone loss.     

Sekundäre Endoprothetik des Ellenbogengelenks nach distaler Humerusfraktur

Good short-term results have been reported for primary total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) but implant longevity is limited. Therefore, primary TEA should be reserved in particular for older patients with severe comminuted distal humeral fractures in whom successful osteosynthesis is often impossible. Angular locking compression plates afford stable fracture fixation even for a severe intra-articular fracture pattern. To date primary TEA for treatment of severe distal humeral fractures is rarely used. Secondary TEA is used in failed osteosynthesis of distal humeral fractures and in unstable post-traumatic elbow joints with osteoarthrosis. Additionally, secondary TEA has become more popular in younger patients for immediate pain reduction and functional improvement. However, weight bearing is limited to 5 kg, racket sports are prohibited and good patient compliance is mandatory. Long-term results of TEA are poorer for trauma patients than those with rheumatoid arthritis.     

Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder and elbow arthroplasty

Due to rapidly increasing numbers of arthroplasty surgeries of the upper extremity, periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, formerly described as rare, may hence increase in the near future. Therefore the aim of the present work was to give an overview of the existing literature including possible classifications as well as an update on treatment concepts and experiences with own cases. After a literature research have been done, existing prevalence, classifications and treatment options, mostly described in case series, were processed to create an overview of the existing state of knowledge. Additionally 7 own cases are described in detail to show the different treatment options used at the authors department. The currently used classification systems take fracture location, angulation and rotation and fixation of the implant into account. Possible solutions for periposthetic fractures of the humerus include conservative management, open reduction and internal fixation for stable prosthesis and long stemmed implants for lose implants as well as the use of additional allo- or autogeneous bone grafting and reverse shoulder arthroplasty in revision cases with rotator cuff dysfunction. After all treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder and elbow arthroplasty remain a challenging problem.     

Revision total elbow arthroplasty with the linked Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty: a retrospective study of twenty procedures

Purpose

In this retrospective study we evaluated the short- to medium-term results after 20 Coonrad-Morrey revision total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs).

Methods

We included a consecutive series of revision TEAs performed at our institution from 2004 to 2010. At a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, patients were evaluated using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and standard radiographs.

Results

The mean age at revision TEA was 65.8 years. The median time of implant survival for primary prosthesis was 9.5 years. The mean post-operative MEPS was 79. The mean OES was 58, 66 and 53 for function, pain and social-psychological dimensions, respectively. At follow-up the range of motion had improved significantly. There were two cases of radiolucent lines and two cases of minor bushing wear; however, none of the implants were clinically loose. In one case deep infection led to a further revision. Two patients had post-operative ulnar nerve paraesthesia.

Conclusions

Results after revision TEA using the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis are acceptable with a low short- to midterm failure rate. Revision improves range of motion and provides pain relief. One case of deep infection with recurrent revision is of concern. The treatment can be used as an option for failed TEA.     

Periprosthetic humeral fractures after total elbow arthroplasty: treatment with implant revision and strut allograft augmentation

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures are among the most challenging complications of elbow arthroplasty, and published information about the outcome of treatment is limited. The purpose of the present study was to determine the results of implant revision and strut allograft augmentation for the treatment of humeral periprosthetic fractures that occur around a loose humeral component. METHODS: Between 1991 and 1999, eleven periprosthetic fractures that occurred around a loose humeral component were treated with cortical strut allograft augmentation and revision arthroplasty with use of a Coonrad-Morrey semiconstrained implant. Six fractures occurred after a primary arthroplasty, and five occurred after a revision arthroplasty. Two parallel strut grafts were used for fracture fixation in most cases. Patients were followed for an average of three years (range, nine months to 7.8 years) and were evaluated clinically and radiographically. RESULTS: Clinical and radiographic fracture union was obtained in ten of the eleven patients. One patient required revision surgery because of aseptic loosening of the humeral component seven years and nine months after fracture union; there were no other implant failures. Complications included one additional nondisplaced humeral periprosthetic fracture after surgery that failed to heal with closed treatment, one olecranon fracture, one permanent ulnar nerve injury, and one case of triceps insufficiency. At the time of the most recent follow-up, seven of the eight patients with an intact reconstruction had a functional arc of motion and no or slight pain and one had limited motion and moderate pain. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic humeral fractures that are associated with a loose humeral component can be effectively treated with revision elbow arthroplasty and strut allograft augmentation. The technique is associated with a high rate of fracture union, implant survival, and satisfactory clinical results. However, the complication rate is substantial.     

Revision total elbow arthroplasty

Over a ten-year period, thirty-three consecutive revision total elbow arthroplasties were performed at our institution. These were assessed at a minimum of three years after the revision, with an average length of follow-up of sixty-one months. Eighteen (55 per cent) of the elbows had a good result and fifteen (45 per cent) had a poor result. The poor results were due to infection in three elbows, loosening of the prosthesis in six, inadequate motion in two, continued pain in two, and prosthetic failure in two. Additional surgical revision with another implant was done in the fifteen elbows that initially had a poor result. Eventually the result was good in twenty-four elbows. The three elbows that became infected after surgical revision had a resection arthroplasty and all were rated as having a fair result. The data from this study indicated that reimplantation is a viable option for the revision of a failed total elbow arthroplasty, although more than one revision may be required. They also suggested that young patients who have post-traumatic arthritis should not undergo a total joint replacement, and that revision procedures should be performed in settings that can offer several surgical options and by surgeons who have had experience with these options. Alternatives to reimplantation as a revision procedure should be considered in selected patients.     

Condylar nonunions of the elbow

Between 1968 and 1978, 32 patients were seen with nonunion of distal humerus fractures in close proximity to the elbow: 25 were treated with open reduction and fixation of the nonunion, and seven patients were treated with excision of the distal fragments and total elbow arthroplasty. Of the 25 patients treated with open reduction and fixation, 22 had union at an average of 7.74 months. However, six of these patients needed secondary procedures for repeat bone grafting or revision of the fixation device. Two of the seven patients with total elbow arthroplasty needed reoperation for loose humeral components.     

Revision of failed total elbow arthroplasty with use of a linked implant

We studied retrospectively the results of revision arthroplasty of the elbow using a linked Coonrad-Morrey implant in 23 patients (24 elbows) after a mean follow-up period of 55 months. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 19 elbows were satisfactory, nine were excellent and ten good. The median total score had improved from 35 points (20 to 75) before the primary arthroplasty to 85 points (40 to 100) at the latest follow-up. There was a marked relief of pain, but the range of movement showed no overall improvement. Two patients had a second revision because of infection and two for aseptic loosening. The estimated five-year survival rate of the prosthesis was 83.1% (95% confidence interval 61.1 to 93.3). Revision elbow arthroplasty using the Coonrad-Morrey implant provided satisfactory results but with complications occurring in 13 cases.     

Primary Arthroplasty for Management of Osteoporotic Fractures about the Knee

Primary cemented arthroplasty of the knee is a viable alternative to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for treatment of osteoporotic fractures about the knee. This permits early return of knee function and weight bearing activity. Stemmed revision total knee arthroplasty implants and techniques are needed, which can be associated with complications of late loosening and periprosthetic fracture. However, for elderly sedentary patients who would not be expected to outlive the durability of the arthroplasty and with fracture patterns in which ORIF may be associated with poor outcomes, primary arthroplasty can be a favorable treatment option.     

Early complications after revision total hip arthroplasty with cemented dual-mobility socket and reinforcement ring

Encouraged by the success of dual-mobility sockets in achieving implant stability in primary hip replacement, surgeons have started to use the implant in revision hip arthroplasty. However, very little is known yet about the postoperative complication rate of this type of implant when fixation in a reinforcement ring is required. In our department, 37 dual-mobility sockets were cemented in a reinforcement ring for revision hip arthroplasty in 36 patients over a period of two years. The mean follow-up period was 16 months (range, 6-27 months). Indications for revision hip arthroplasty included, among others, recurrent dislocation (3 cases) and implant loosening (9 cases) with extensive bone loss. We observed two single re-dislocations (5.40%), one infection and one mechanical failure of the reinforcement ring; the literature mentions dislocation rates of 2.7 to 10.6% after revisions not specifically for recurrent dislocation. Revision hip arthoplasty combining dual-mobility sockets with reinforcement ring fixation thus had a relatively low early postoperative complication rate in this challenging group of patients. The design therefore seems to be a valid alternative to constrained implants, especially in high-risk revision cases. Despite the short follow-up period, cemented dual-mobility sockets seem to be a valuable option when reinforcement rings need to be used, with an acceptable dislocation rate in this challenging group of patients. But long-term survival studies are mandatory to evaluate stability and fixation longevity.     

Comparison of functional outcomes of total elbow arthroplasty vs plate fixation for distal humerus fractures in osteoporotic elbows

Treating intra-articular fractures about the osteoporotic distal humerus poses a significant challenge. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate functional outcomes for distal humeral fractures treated with total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in a nonarthritic elderly population with osteoporosis. We reviewed the records of all women older than age 60 who had undergone surgical treatment for intraarticular distal humerus fractures (Orthopaedic Trauma Association types 13B and 13C) by 1 of 2 surgeons. Demographic and operative data were obtained, charts were reviewed, and patients were asked to have their outcomes evaluated with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI). Twenty-two patients (23 elbows) were identified, and 2 of these (3 elbows) were excluded. Of the remaining 20 patients, 9 had undergone cemented, semiconstrained TEA as initial treatment, and 11 had undergone ORIF. These 2 groups were compared. Mean follow-up was 14.8 months (range, 6-38 months). There were no significant differences between the TEA and ORIF groups with respect to demographic factors. Final elbow range of motion was 92° flexion-extension arc (arthroplasty group) and 98° (fixation group). Two patients in the arthroplasty group and 2 in the fixation group died. For the remaining patients, mean DASH scores were 30.2 (arthroplasty) and 32.1 (fixation), and mean MEPI scores were 79 (arthroplasty) and 85 (fixation). These differences were not statistically significant. Four TEAs developed radiographic loosening by a mean of 15 months, and 1 of these underwent revision with good outcome. Ten of the 11 fractures in the fixation group healed radiographically; the 1 nonunion with collapse continued to be asymptomatic. Two patients in the fixation group underwent contracture release after union for limited elbow range of motion. Many factors come into play in the treatment of intra-articular distal humerus fractures in patients with osteoporosis. Implant selection must be based on bone quality, expected outcome, and surgeon experience. For these injuries, good outcomes may be obtained with either TEA or ORIF.     

Outcomes of total elbow arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis: comparative study of three implants

BACKGROUND: As the English-language literature on prosthetic elbow arthroplasty contains only two comparative studies of implants in contemporary use, to our knowledge, comparisons of prosthetic performance is difficult. An improved knowledge of comparative outcomes would be valuable in guiding implant selection. METHODS: We identified three groups of consecutive patients who had undergone prosthetic elbow arthroplasty with the Souter-Strathclyde, Kudo, or Coonrad-Morrey implant for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. There were thirty-three elbows in each group. All procedures were done by or under the supervision of one surgeon. Surviving patients in whom the elbow had not been revised were followed for a mean of sixty-one months after treatment with the Souter-Strathclyde implant, sixty-seven months after treatment with the Kudo implant, and sixty-eight months after treatment with the Coonrad-Morrey implant. Clinical function was assessed on the basis of pain relief and the range of flexion. Survivorship was assessed with use of a life-table method, with revision surgery and radiographic signs of loosening as the end points. RESULTS: The groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, and mean duration of follow-up. All three implant procedures relieved pain. Sustained improvement in the range of flexion was comparable among the three groups, with no implant procedure dramatically changing the fixed flexion deformity and all three improving maximum flexion. Revision surgery was needed because of infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening. Survival of the Coonrad-Morrey implant was better than that of the other two implants. The five-year survival rates, with revision and radiographic signs of loosening as the end points, were 85% and 81% for the Souter-Strathclyde implant, 93% and 82% for the Kudo implant, and 90% and 86% for the Coonrad-Morrey implant. While radiographic evidence of loosening of the Coonrad-Morrey implants was less common, we noted focal osteolysis adjacent to 16% of these ulnar components and half of these cases progressed to frank loosening. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical function of these implants was similar in terms of pain relief and range of motion. We believe that component linkage with the Coonrad-Morrey implant prevents dislocation without increasing the risk of loosening.     

Total elbow arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis

Background and purpose Although total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is a recognized procedure for the treatment of the painful arthritic elbow, the choice of implant is still obscure. We evaluated the survival of different TEA designs and factors associated with survival using data from a nationwide arthroplasty register.

Methods 1,457 primary TEAs for rheumatoid elbow destruction were performed during 1982 to 2006 in one hospital specialized in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (n = 776) and in 19 other hospitals (n = 681). The mean age of the patients was 59 years and 87% of the TEAs were performed in women. We selected different contemporary TEA designs, each used in more than 40 operations including the Souter-Strathclyde (n = 912), i.B.P./Kudo (n = 218), Coonrad-Morrey (n = 164), and NESimplavit/Norway (n = 63) to assess their individual survival rates. Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Cox regression model were used for survival analysis.

Results The most frequent reason for revision was aseptic loosening (47%). We found no differences in survival rates between different TEA designs. We did, however, find a 1.5-fold (95% CI: 1.1–2.1) elevated risk of revision in unspecialized hospitals as compared to the one hospital specialized in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. In the Souter-Strathclyde subgroup, there was a reduced risk of revision (RR 0.6, p = 0.001) in TEAs implanted over 1994–2006 as compared to those implanted earlier (1982–1993). The 10-year survivorship for the whole TEA cohort was 83% (95% CI: 81–86), which agrees with earlier reports.

Interpretation The influence of implant choice on the survival of TEA is minor compared to hip and knee arthroplasties. Inferior survival rates of the TEAs performed in the unspecialized hospitals demonstrates the importance of proper indications, surgical technique, and postoperative follow-up, and endorses the need for centralization of these operations at specialized units.     

Primary total elbow arthroplasty

There have been significant improvements in surgical techniques and implant designs of elbow arthroplasty over the last five decades. These advances have resulted in improved outcomes and expansion of indications for total elow arthroplasty (TEA). As the proportion of TEAs being performed for inflammatory arthritis has been decreasing in recent years, TEAs are being performed more commonly for the management of acute distal humerus fractures in the elderly, post-traumatic sequelae, and primary osteoarthritis. Appropriate patient selection and meticulous attention to surgical technique including the surgical approach, implant positioning and fixation will result in acceptable outcomes. Future advances in the design, instrumentation, and surgical technique will allow for further improvement in outcomes as the indications for TEA continue to expand.     

Does implant selection affect outcome of revision knee arthroplasty?

We reviewed 139 consecutive femoral or tibial revision knee arthroplasties to determine if the outcome of revision knee arthroplasty using revision implant systems was superior to revisions using primary implant systems. Group 1 (n = 42) consisted of revisions performed with implants designed for primary total knee arthroplasty. Group 2 (n = 42) consisted of revisions performed with modified primary components. Group 3 (n = 55) consisted of revisions performed with components specifically designed for revision arthroplasty. The implant status was known in 123 of 139 knees at a mean follow-up of 7 years (range, 5-12 years). The implant-related failure rate, defined as reoperation requiring component revision or removal, was 26% for group 1, 14% for group 2, and 6% for group 3 (P<.05). Revision implants exhibited superior performance and durability despite their use in more difficult reconstructions. The improved longevity of revision implants justifies the evolution of modular revision components.     

Rotating platform revision total knee arthroplasty

Although revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures are successful in relieving pain and restoring function in failed knees, long-term results are inferior to primary procedures. Mobile bearing (MB) revision knees can potentially improve functional performance. Clinical results of 44 MB rotating platform (RP) revision TKAs demonstrated mean knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) activity of daily living score of 77 2 years postoperatively. Clinical results were put into context through wear testing which demonstrated improved wear performance compared with fixed bearing (FB) revision knees. The RP construct is a good choice for revision TKA because it permits the surgeon to align the tray for fixation, not compromise rotation of the tibial insert, and reduce transmission of shear stresses to the bone, cement and implant interface, which is a known cause of failure.     

A comparison of open reduction and internal fixation and primary total elbow arthroplasty in the treatment of intraarticular distal humerus fractures in women older than age 65

OBJECTIVE: To compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) for intraarticular distal humerus fractures in women older than 65 years of age. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Information was obtained from a Level 1 trauma center with fellowship-trained traumatologists and a tertiary care center with fellowship-trained shoulder and elbow surgeons. PATIENTS: Patients were 24 women older than age 65 who sustained distal humerus fractures that required surgical treatment with clinical follow-up at a minimum of 2 years. All fractures were OTA classification 13.C2 or 13.C3. No patients were lost to follow-up. INTERVENTION: ORIF or TEA was the treatment method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The Mayo Elbow Performance score and the need for revision surgery were established as the means of patient evaluation. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Using the Mayo Elbow Performance score, the outcomes of the 12 patients treated with ORIF were as follows: 4 excellent, 4 good, 1 fair, and 3 poor (cases that required conversion to TEA). Outcomes of the 12 patients treated with TEA were as follows: 11 excellent and 1 good. There were no fair or poor outcomes in the TEA group. No patients treated with TEA required revision surgery. We believe TEA to be a viable treatment option for distal intraarticular humerus fractures in women older than age 65. This is particularly true for women with associated comorbidities, such as rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, and conditions requiring the use of systemic steroids.     

Periprosthetic fractures around the knee—the best way of treatment

Background

A variety of methods has been described to stabilise periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Our report offers a review of the actual strategies in the reduction and fixation of these fractures. Surgical treatment should be based on the following four steps:

1. Diagnostics: By taking the patients' history together with an X-ray of the knee and femur, the fracture is analysed. It is crucial to define whether any losening of the prosthesis had occurred. In selected cases, CT-scan may add important information on the stability of the implant.
2. Classification and planning: For most fractures around the distal femur, the Rorabeck classification is used while fractures around the proximal tibia are best classified according to the Felix classification. Additionally the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) may be helpful in the planning process for reduction and fixation.
3. Surgigal technique: In fractures around a stable implant (Rorabeck type I and II; Felix type A and C), it is favourable to use plates and retrograde nails (in Rorabeck I or II with an open box of a TKA). For reduction, three methods are available: (a) the open technique (with direct or indirect reduction); (b) the mini open technique (direct reduction of the fracture by cerclage or lag screw and percutaneous plate fixation in OTA type 32 or 33-A1) and (c) the minimally invasive technique (indirect reduction and percutaneous fixation in all other OTA types). Fractures with a loose prosthesis (Rorabeck III and Felix B) are best stabilised by hinged revision arthroplasty.
4. Rehabilitation: It is of great importance for the aged patient to be mobilised out of bed early. In most of the cases, partial weight bearing has to be performed by the aid of frames during the first 6 weeks after surgery. In a well-fixed revision prosthesis with a cemented stem, early full weight bearing might be allowed.

Conclusion

Standardised less invasive procedures to treat periprosthetic fractures present a valuable alternative to open techniques. The main advantages are lower rates of oft tissue complications and implant failures following less invasive techniques of long plate application. Polyaxial locking systems allow for stable plate fixation around intramedullary implants.     

The cemented humerus and non-cemented glenoid: The optimal hybrid solution for total shoulder arthroplasty

Hybrid fixation of total joint arthroplasty has been recognized as an accepted form of surgical approach in multiple joints. Principles of implant fixation should focus on durability and on providing secure long-term function. To date, there is no conclusive evidence that pressed-fit humeral stem fixation has an advantage over well-secured cemented humeral fixation. Although revision may require cement removal, a well-fixed bone—ingrowth implant may require slatting and osteotomy of the humerus. On the contrary, need for revision in arthroplasty due to inadequate implant fixation has almost universally revolved around the failure of cement fixation and loosening of the glenoid component. A case will be made based on 30 years of experience of a surgeon performing total shoulder arthroplasty using secure modern cement-fixation techniques of humeral components. More recently, over the past 10 years an extremely high rate of durable secure glenoid implant fixation has been achieved using press-fit tantalum porous anchorage of polyethylene glenoid components. This has resulted in no cases of loosening of glenoid fixation and only one case of glenoid component fracture with greater than 95% survivorship over a 10-year period. A combination of well-cemented humeral stem and trabecular metal anchorage of the glenoid has provided durable and long-lasting function in primary total shoulder arthroplasty.