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.

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PurposeAcromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations are common in a young and active population, especially in people performing contact sports. Full recovery with a fast and high rate of return to sport is desirable. This systematic review aims to combine patient outcomes in order to help surgeons in addressing patient expectations regarding the return to sport after surgical intervention for AC dislocations.MethodsTo conduct this systematic review, the PRISMA guidelines were followed. Articles were included if written in English or Dutch and evaluated return to sport after any type of surgical intervention for Rockwood types III to VI AC dislocations in patients practicing sports. Outcome parameters were return to sport, time to return to sport, level of sport, functional outcome scores and complications.ResultsTwelve studies involving 498 patients were included, of which 462 patients practiced sports. 432 (94%) patients returned to sport. The weighted mean time to return to sport was 4.0 months. 338 out of 401 patients (84%) returned to the same level of pre-injury sport and 35 patients (9%) lowered their level of sport. The weighted mean Constant score was 92 out of 100.ConclusionThe rate of return to sport after surgical intervention for Rockwood (RW) III–VI AC dislocations is high. However, the level of evidence was low and due to the methodological heterogeneity between studies, subgroup analyses of return to sport outcomes were not feasible.Level of evidenceSystematic review of level I–IV studies, level IV.

Primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the elbow can cause disabling symptoms of pain, locking, stiffness, and a limitation in the range of motion. There is no consensus regarding the role of open and arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of symptomatic primary elbow OA. The aim of this study is to systematically review the outcome of surgical debridement. A preoperative/postoperative comparison will be made between the two surgical procedures. All studies reporting on debridement as treatment for primary elbow OA with a minimum of one-year follow-up were included. Outcome parameters were functional results, complications, and performance scores. Data were extracted from 21 articles. The arthroscopic group consisted of 286 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 40 ± 17 months (range, 16–75). The open group consisted of 300 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 55 ± 20 months (range, 19–85). Both procedures showed improvement in Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range of motion (ROM) flexion-extension, and ROM pronation-supination. Only in ROM flexion was a statistically significant difference in improvement seen between the groups in favour of the open group. The arthroscopic group showed improvement in pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Nothing could be stated about pain VAS scores in the open group due to a lack of data. In the arthroscopic group 18 complications (6%) were described, in the open group 29 complications (12%). Surgical debridement is an effective treatment for the disabling symptoms of primary elbow OA with an acceptable complication rate. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:874-882. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190095

Background: The incidence of triceps insufficiency after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) varies in the literature, and a consensus on treatment strategy is lacking. We review the incidence, the risk factors, the clinical presentation, and the diagnosis and treatment of triceps insufficiency after TEA. Based on this information, we have formulated recommendations for clinical practice.Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature from January 2003 to April 2020 to identify studies that investigated triceps function following TEA by searching the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies (1) reported on triceps function following primary or revision TEA for every indication, regardless of technique (e.g., bone grafts), (2) included $6 adult patients, (3) had the full-text article available, and (4) had a minimum follow-up of 1 year.Results: Eighty studies with a total of 4,825 TEAs were included. The quality was low in 15 studies, moderate in 64 studies, and high in 1 study. The mean incidence of triceps insufficiency was 4.5%. The rates were highest in patients after revision TEA (22%), in those with posttraumatic arthritis as an indication for surgery (10.2%), and after a triceps-reflecting approach (4.9%). Most studies used the Medical Research Council scale to score triceps function, although cutoff points and the definition of triceps insufficiency differed among studies. Surgical treatment showed favorable results with anconeus tendon transfer and Achilles allograft repair when compared with direct repair. Conclusions:The incidence of triceps insufficiency varies greatly, probably due to a lack of consensus on the definition of the term. Therefore, we recommend the guidelines for clinical practice that are presented in this article. These guidelines assist clinicians in providing the best possible treatment strategy for their patients and help researchers optimize their future study designs in order to compare outcomes.