header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

ENDOPROSTHETIC RECONSTRUCTION AROUND THE ELBOW



Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of custom-made endoprosthetic reconstruction for both tumourous and non-tumourous conditions around the elbow joint.

Methods and Results: 28 consecutive cases of endoprosthetic elbow reconstruction, performed between 1989 and 2003, were identified using the unit database. There were 12 males and 16 females, with a mean age of 48.9 years, (range 14–84). There were 16 cases of malignant tumour (10 primary, 6 secondary), 3 cases of benign tumour (one each of giant cell tumour, osteoblastoma and pigmented villonodular synovitis) and 10 non-oncological cases, (5 cases of fracture, 3 failed total elbow replacements and 1 infected synostosis). A distal humeral prosthesis was used in 16 patients, distal humeral and proximal ulna in 10 patients, proximal ulna with a humeral component in one patient and proximal radial replacement in one patient. Clinical and radiographic review of all available patients, including a functional assessment with The Toronto Extremity Salvage (TES) score was undertaken. The average follow-up was 54.9 months (range 5–144). 5 patients with malignancy died of their disease. One patient required amputation for local recurrence at 5 months. There were two revisions at 4 and 7 years for aseptic loosening of the humeral component. Six patients developed deep prosthetic infection at an average of 21 months (range 6–31), necessitating two-stage revision, of which one patient required subsequent excision arthroplasty. There were no cases of permanent nerve palsy. 18 patients (64.3%) were available for functional follow-up. Average flexion deformity was 33 degrees (7–80) and average flexion was 85 degrees (30–133). The mean TES score was 67.8 (range 36.6–96.6). The mean TES score following two-stage revision for infection, (available in 4/5 patients) was 73.9 (range 54.8–91.6).

Conclusion: Custom-made endoprosthetic reconstruction around the elbow joint is effective in a wide range of pathologies, allowing in most cases a reasonable level of function, even following two-stage revision for infection.

The abstracts were prepared by Mr Roger Tillman. Correspondence should be addressed to BOOS at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PN