Abstract
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.
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 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 score (TESS) was undertaken.
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 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 score (TESS) was undertaken.
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.
Correspondence should be addressed to Richard Komistek, PhD, International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty, PO Box 6564, Auburn, CA 95604, USA. E-mail: ista@pacbell.net
