Although it is generally accepted that revision total elbow replacement may be necessary for loosening, instability, peri-prosthetic fracture and infection there is less agreement as to whether surgery should be performed as a one or two stage procedure. This can be of vital importance since the soft tissues around the elbow are often relatively poor making a single operation desirable. However, a one stage procedure in the presence of undetected low grade infection will result in joint failure with early loosening. In our unit we have found the use of a preliminary aspiration/drill biopsy prior to revision surgery helpful in evaluating whether a one or two stage procedure should be performed. Over an 8 year period 18 revision total elbow replacements have been undertaken. 9 patients were revised for aseptic loosening, 4 for proven infection, 3 for instability of an unlinked implant and 2 for peri-prosthetic fracture. With this experience we have devised the following management plan: Early instability of an unlinked implant is due to either poor implant positioning or soft tissue balancing and is suitable for a one stage revision without the need for aspiration/drill biopsy. Late instability is due to implant wear or low grade infection. In this situation we regard an aspiration/drill biopsy as necessary. A negative result allows a one stage revision whereas a positive aspiration indicates the need for a two stage revision. In a peri-prosthetic fracture if the bone cement mantle is intact a one stage revision without aspiration/ drill biopsy can be performed. If however, there is bone cement lucency we would advise an aspiration/ drill biopsy. We have found the aspiration/drill biopsy helpful prior to revision total elbow replacement and we have used it to guide us as to whether a one or two stage procedure should be performed.
The Copeland shoulder arthroplasty has been reported to give good results over a 5 to 10 year follow-up period. In this series all the humeral implants were inserted without cement. There was evidence of radiolucency in 30% of the humeral components. In our unit since 1995 we have implanted the Copeland shoulder hemiarthroplasty using cement around the stem of the prosthesis. We radiologically reviewed 40 patients with a mean radiological follow-up of 4.5 years. There was radiological evidence of loosening in 5%. Of this group, twenty-five patients had a minimum follow-up of 5 years, with a radiological loosening rate of 8%. We would suggest that the use of a small amount of cement around the stem of the humeral component is beneficial in reducing the rate of loosening. We also feel that, as the amount of cement is small and only around the stem, if revision is required it can be undertaken without the difficulties usually associated with cemented prostheses.
The purpose of this study was to design a clinically useful classification for distal humeral fractures that would provide guidance to the surgeon with regard to surgical approach and operative management. This classification was assessed using the original radiographs from a study comparing distal humeral fracture classifications previously undertaken in Oxford, and validated using the exact methodology of that study. Nine independent assessors (3 orthopaedic consultants, 3 orthopaedic registrars and 3 musculoskeletal radiologists) were asked to classify 33 sets of radiographs on two separate occasions using the Riseborough and Radin, Jupiter and Mehne, and AO classifications as well as the new classification system. The assessors were unaware of the origin of the new system as this had been given a fictitious name. Using the Kappa statistic, the level of inter-observer and intra-observer agreement was determined and interpreted using the Landis and Koch criteria. Amongst all observers, the new classification is both a substantially reliable (k=0.664) and reproducible (k=0.732) classification system. The new classification achieved superior inter- and intra-observer agreement compared to the other three classification systems with a low proportion of unclassifiable fractures comparable to the AO method (3.7%). In reproducing materials and methodology from an independent study, we have been able to validate this new fracture classification system. Used in conjunction with a management algorithm, we believe the new classification aids the surgical decision-making process for these complex fractures.
Between 1993 and 1996, we undertook 35 Kudo 5 total elbow replacements in a consecutive series of 31 rheumatoid patients. A total of 25 patients (29 procedures) was evaluated at a mean follow-up of six years (5 to 7.5) using the Mayo Clinic performance index. In addition, all patients were assessed for loosening using standard anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. At review, 19 elbows (65%) had either no pain or mild pain, ten (35%) had moderate pain and none had severe pain. The mean arc of flexion/extension was 94° (35 to 130) and supination/pronation was 128° (30 to 165). A fracture of the medial epicondyle occurred during surgery in one patient. This was successfully treated with a single AO screw and a standard Kudo 5 implant was inserted. Postoperatively, there were no infections. One patient had a dislocation which was treated by closed reduction and five had neurapraxia of the ulnar nerve. Radiologically, there was no evidence of loosening of the humeral component, but two ulnar components had progressive radiolucent lines suggestive of loosening. Two other ulnar components had incomplete and non-progressive radiolucent lines. With definite radiological loosening as the endpoint, the probability of survival of the Kudo 5 prosthesis at five years using the Kaplan-Meier method was 89%.
Between 1990 and 1996 we performed 20 consecutive ulnohumeral arthroplasties for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow. The outcome was assessed using the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH) and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) at a mean follow-up of 75 months (58 to 132). There were excellent or good results in 17 elbows (85%) using the DASH score and in 13 (65%) with the MEPS (correlation coefficient 0.79). The mean fixed flexion deformity had improved by 10° and the range of flexion by a mean of 20°. In 16 elbows (80%) the benefits of surgery had been maintained, and of 16 patients working at the time of operation, 12 (75%) had returned to the same job. There was no correlation between radiological recurrence of degenerative changes and the amount of fixed flexion deformity, the flexion arc, or the elbow scores.
We undertook a prospective, controlled trial which compared two rehabilitation programmes for 86 patients who sustained two-part fractures of the proximal humerus. Patients were randomised either to receive immediate physiotherapy within one week (group A) or delayed physiotherapy after three weeks of immobilisation in a collar and cuff sling (group B). At 16 weeks after the fracture, patients in group A had less pain (p <
0.01) and had greater shoulder function (p <
0.001) than those in group B. At 52 weeks, the differences between the groups had reduced. Although group A still had greater shoulder function and less pain, there was no statistical difference when compared with group B. By analysis of the area under the curve, an overall measure up to the 52-week period, group A experienced less pain as measured by the SF36 general health questionnaire and had improved shoulder function. Our results show that patients with two-part fractures of the proximal humerus who begin immediate physiotherapy, experience less pain. The gains in shoulder function persist at 52 weeks which suggests that patients do not benefit from immobilisation before beginning physiotherapy.
The average follow up period was 6 years (range 4.5 – 9 years). The Oxford Shoulder Score revealed that 72% had good to excellent results, 16% remained unchanged and 12% were worse than prior to surgery. The corresponding DASH scores were 28% excellent, 40% good, 16% fair and 16% poor respectively. In addition 81% of patients were independent with daily activities, with 48% of them living alone and the remaining 33% living with their partners. Only 19% of patients needed significant help with their activities of daily living. These results were irrespective of whether surgery was performed on the dominant or non-dominant shoulder.
Between 1993 and 2002 7 allografts/joint replacement combinations have been used to treat massive bone loss at the elbow. The original 4 procedures (2 humeral and 2 ulna allografts) used a standard Stanmore total elbow replacement. Of these the 2 humeral allografts failed and revision surgery was necessary. The 2 grafts on the ulna side of the joint remain in situ (average 6 years after surgery) with one of the patients subsequently having a primary joint replacement on the contra-lateral side. More recently a further humeral and a further ulna allograft/joint replacement have been performed together with one patient having humeral and ulna allografts on both sides of the joint for extensive bone loss. In these cases the Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty was used as the joint implant. The philosophy behind the use of allografts is discussed and the management principles outlined. The possible reasons for failure of the early humerus allograft/joint replacement combinations is addressed and future developments considered.
The long term results of the ulnohumeral arthroplasty have not previously been reported using a recognised elbow scoring system. Kashiwagi reported his results in 1986 but no validated scoring system was used in the publication. Morrey in 1992 evaluated his results using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score but the mean follow-up interval was only 33 months. Between 1990 and 1996 twenty consecutive ulnohumeral arthroplasties were performed for primary degenerative disease of the elbow. Outcome assessment using the DASH questionnaire and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score was taken at a mean follow-up of 75 months (range 58 to 132). Excellent or good results were identified in 85% (17/20) using the DASH questionnaire, and 65% (13/20) on assessment with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (correlation coefficient 0.79). Eighty percent (16/20) felt that the benefits of surgery had been maintained, and of those working at the time of surgery, 75% (12/16) were still employed in the same vocation. There was no correlation between radiographic recurrence and the degree of fixed flexion deformity, flexion arc or elbow scores.
Although total elbow arthroplasty is undertaken in far smaller numbers than total hip and knee arthroplasty a recent review of the world literature indicated that aseptic loosening radiologically occurred in 17.2% whilst clinical loosening was present in 6.4%. In addition, infections were noted in 8.1% With both aseptic and septic loosening bone loss can be a major problem and must be addressed if revision surgery is contemplated Options for treating bone loss include:
Revision with standard implant Revision with customised implant Revision with impaction bone grafting and standard or customised implant Revision with allograft and standard or customised implant When considering revision surgery it is essential to ascertain whether or not implant loosening is aseptic or septic. To this end screening blood tests including white blood count, ESR and CRP should be performed. A bone scan may also be helpful. In addition, it is my practice to perform an aspiration biopsy prior to revision surgery. A sample of fluid from the elbow joint is looked at microscopically and cultured for organism sensitivity. If infection is present surgery is undertaken as a two-stage procedure. The first stage involves removal of the implant and bone cement together with the insertion of antibiotic beads specially prepared with added antibiotics appropriate to the sensitivity of the infectiong organism. If infection is not present then a one-stage revision is performed.
Between 1995 and 2000, 19 consecutive patients with fractures of the distal humerus were treated by primary total elbow replacement using the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis. No patient had inflammatory or degenerative arthritis of the elbow. The mean age at the time of injury was 73 years (61 to 95). According to the AO classification, 11 patients had suffered a C3 injury, two a B3 and two an A3. One fracture was unclassified. Two patients died from unrelated causes and one was unable to be assessed because of concurrent illness. The mean time to follow-up was three years (1 to 5.5). At follow-up 11 patients (68%) reported no pain, four (25%) had mild pain with activity and one had mild pain at rest. The mean flexion arc was 24° to 125°. The mean supination was 90° (70 to 100) and pronation 70° (50 to 110). No elbow was unstable. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 23 (0.92 to 63.3) and the mean Mayo elbow performance score was 93 (80 to 100). Of the 16 patients, 15 were satisfied with the outcome. Radiological evaluation revealed only one patient with a radiolucent line at the cement-bone interface. It was between 1 and 2 mm in length, was present on the initial postoperative radiograph and was non-progressive at the time of follow-up. Primary total elbow arthroplasty is an acceptable option for the management of comminuted fractures of the distal humerus in elderly patients when the configuration of the fracture and the quality of the bone make reconstruction difficult.
Cobb and Morrey (1997) reported the use of Total Elbow Replacement (TER) for patients with distal humerus fractures. In this paper, 48% of the patients had a previous history of inflammatory arthropathy. Our aim was to determine the role of TER as treatment for complex distal humeral fractures in elderly patients with no previous history of inflammatory arthropathy. These patients have greater functional demands. The complexity of the original injury was graded according to the AO Mullers’ classification of supracondylar humeral fractures. All patients were reviewed clinically and radiographically. Their daily activities and general post-operative quality of life was estimated with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. The Mayo elbow performance score was used for functional evaluation. Implant survivorship was assessed. Fourteen patients (11 female and three male) underwent a Coonrad-Morrey TER via a standard posterior approach for humeral fractures. Their mean age was 73 years (range 61–84 years) at the time of injury. Ten patients had suffered a C3 injury, two a B3 and two an A3 according to the AO classification. The mean time to surgery after their injury was 8 days (range: 1–21 days). Complications: one myocardial infarct and one superficial wound infection. Mean time to follow-up was three years and two months (range: 9–66 months). Nine (64%) reported no pain, four (29%) had mild pain with activity and one had mild pain at rest. The mean arc of extension-flexion movement was 24°–125°. Supination: mean = 90° (range: 70°–100°). Pronation: mean = 70° (range: 50°–110°). No elbow was unstable. The mean DASH score was 22.6 (range: 0.92–63.3). Zero reflects no disability, 100 reflects most severe disability. The mean Mayo elbow performance score was 90 (range: 80–100). X-rays revealed that all implants were well fixed with no evidence of loosening. One patient had severe hypertrophic bone.
Three and four part fractures of the proximal humerus can prove difficult to treat and results are generally poor. We used a Polarus Nail technique to treat seven consecutive patients who had sustained an isolated fracture to the proximal humerus. According to Neers classification, four patients had sustained a three-part fracture and three patients a four-part fracture. One patient had a fracture dislocation. At review, six of the seven patients were assessed using the Constant and Dash scoring systems. One patient had died, but at last review had been discharged with a satisfactory result. The average age of the patients reviewed was 62 years (range 48–79). The dominant hand was affected in 2 patients. All six patients were followed up to fracture union and were happy with the result of treatment. All patients had mild or no pain. The average Constant score was 83 (range 59–98) and average Dash score was 131 (range 8–300) When comparing our results to other methods of treatment already described, we found that fixation using a Polarus nail provided a satisfactory alternative method. In fact, our patients appeared to have less pain and a higher score to all elements of the Constant score. We conclude therefore that the use of the Polarus Nail should be considered as a treatment option in this group of patients.
We describe a posterior approach to the elbow which combines the advantages of both splitting and reflecting the triceps. It gives protection to the ulnar nerve and its blood supply during the operation while providing excellent exposure of the distal humerus. During closure, the triceps muscle can be tensioned, thereby improving stability of the elbow. This approach has particular relevance to unlinked total elbow arthroplasty allowing early rehabilitation of the joint.
We have reviewed 12 fractures of the coracoid process. In two of these patients the fracture extended into the body of the scapula and resulted in displacement of the glenoid. In some cases, there were associated acromioclavicular and glenohumeral dislocations or fractures of the clavicle and the acromion. Two patients required internal fixation to restore congruence of the glenoid; the others were treated conservatively with success. We present a new classification of coracoid fractures which helps in their management.
A method of treating Freiberg's disease of the metatarsal head by shortening the metatarsal bone is described. This operation has been performed in 15 patients (16 feet). Excellent relief of pain was obtained, although most patients had persistent stiffness of the metatarsophalangeal joint.
