No abstract

Background and purpose — The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) was analyzed to determine trends in use of primary total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), the types of prostheses used, primary diagnoses, reasons for and types of revision, and whether the primary diagnosis or prosthesis design influenced the revision rate.Patients and methods — During 2008–2018, 1,220 primary TEA procedures were reported of which 140 TEAs were revised. Kaplan–Meier estimates of survivorship were used to describe the time to first revision and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to compare revision rates.Results — The annual number of TEAs performed remained constant. The 3 most common diagnoses for primary TEA were fracture/dislocation (trauma) (36%), osteoarthritis (OA) (34%), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (26%). The cumulative percentage revision for all TEAs undertaken for any reason was 10%, 15%, and 19% at 3, 6, and 9 years. TEAs undertaken for OA had a higher revision rate compared with TEAs for trauma (HR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–3.0) and RA (HR = 2.0, CI 1.3–3.1). The Coonrad-Morrey (50%), Latitude (30%), Nexel (10%), and Discovery (9%) were the most used prosthesis designs. There was no difference in revision rates when these 4 designs were compared. The most common reasons for revision were infection (35%) and aseptic loosening (34%).Interpretation — The indications for primary and revision TEA in Australia are similar to those reported for other registries. Revision for trauma is lower than previously reported.

Since the introduction of the radial head prosthesis (RHP) in 1941, many designs have been introduced. It is not clear whether prosthesis design parameters are related to early failure. The aim of this systematic review is to report on failure modes and to explore the association between implant design and early failure. A search was conducted to identify studies reporting on failed primary RHP. The results are clustered per type of RHP based on: material, fixation technique, modularity, and polarity. Chi-square tests are used to compare reasons for failure between the groups. Thirty-four articles are included involving 152 failed radial head arthroplasties (RHAs) in 152 patients. Eighteen different types of RHPs have been used. The most frequent reasons for revision surgery after RHA are (aseptic) loosening (30%), elbow stiffness (20%) and/or persisting pain (17%). Failure occurs after an average of 34 months (range, 0–348 months; median, 14 months). Press-fit prostheses fail at a higher ratio because of symptomatic loosening than intentionally loose-fit prostheses and prostheses that are fixed with an expandable stem (p < 0.01). Because of the many different types of RHP used to date and the limited numbers and evidence on early failure of RHA, the current data provide no evidence for a specific RHP design. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:659-667. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180099

BackgroundThe elbow is prone to stiffness after trauma. To regain functional elbow motion several conservative- and surgical treatment options are available. Conservative treatment includes physical therapy, intra-articular injections with corticosteroids and a static progressive or dynamic splinting program. If conservative treatment fails, an operative release of the posttraumatic stiff elbow is often performed. The best Evidence-Based rehabilitation protocol for patients after an operative release is unknown to date and differs per surgeon, hospital and country. Options include early- or delayed motion supervised by a physical therapist, immediate continuous passive motion (CPM), (night) splinting and a static progressive or dynamic splinting program.Methods/designThe SET-Study (Stiff Elbow Trial) is a single-centre, prospective, randomized controlled trial. The primary objective of this study is to compare the active Range of Motion (ROM) (flexion arc and rotational arc) twelve months after surgery between three groups. The first group will receive in-hospital CPM in combination with early motion Physical Therapy (PT) supervised by a physical therapist, the second group will receive only in-hospital early motion PT supervised by a physical therapist and the third group will receive outpatient supervised PT from postoperative day seven till ten. Secondary outcome measures will be Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), the quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) score, Visual Analogue pain Scale in rest and activity (VAS), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Short Form (SF)-36, the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Revised (CESD-R) and the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) for the upper limb.DiscussionA successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the best rehabilitation protocol in order to (re)gain optimal motion after surgical release of the stiff elbow.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register: NTR6067, 31–8-2016.

No abstract

AIMTo evaluate the effect of introducing a structured online follow-up system on the response rate.METHODSSince June 2015 we have set up an electronic follow-up system for prosthesis in orthopedic patients. This system allows prospective data gathering using both online and paper questionnaires. In the past all patients received questionnaires on paper. This study includes only patients who received elbow arthroplasty. Response rates before and after introduction of the online database were compared. After the implementation, completeness of the questionnaires was compared between paper and digital versions. For both comparisons Fisher’s Exact tests were used.RESULTSA total of 233 patients were included in the study. With the introduction of this online follow-up system, the overall response rate increased from 49.8% to 91.6% (P < 0.01). The response rate of 92.0% in the paper group was comparable to 90.7% in the online group (P > 0.05). Paper questionnaires had a completeness of 54.4%, which was lower compared to the online questionnaires where we reached full completeness (P < 0.01). Furthermore, non-responders proved to be younger with a mean age of 52 years compared to a mean age 62 years of responders (P < 0.05).CONCLUSIONThe use of a structured online follow-up system increased the response rate. Moreover, online questionnaires are more complete than paper questionnaires.

Purpose Allografts play an important role in tendon, ligament, and bone reconstruction surgery, particularly when suitable available autologous tissue is limited. Enthusiasm for the use of allografts in reconstructive orthopedic surgery has increased over the past decade, with an increase in allograft use in a variety of procedures. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the various applications and indications for the use of allografts in reconstructive surgical procedures of the elbow and forearm. Methods MEDLINE/PubMed was searched from 1990 through October 2018 for studies on tendon and bony allografts in elbow and forearm reconstructive surgery. ResultsThe Achilles tendon allograft is the most frequently used tendinous allograft, predominantly used in distal biceps and triceps reconstruction. Although reconstruction of the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow is generally performed using autografts, it has been shown that semitendinosus and gracilis allografts may be equally effective. Extensor hallucis longus allografts are recommended for reconstruction of the lateral collateral ligaments in patients with posterolateral rotatory instability, and there may be a role for osteochondral allograft transplantation in capitellar osteochondral defects. In addition, the use of allografts in reconstruction of the interosseous membrane and various bone pathologies (fractures, bone tumors, forearm nonunions) has been described in current literature. Conclusion There is a large variety of pathology and procedures involving the use of various types of allografts in orthopedic reconstructive surgery of the elbow and forearm.

Large standard deviations of normative values in combination with different measurement devices used, as well as the different measurement positions of the subjects, demonstrated that there is no consensus about measuring the isometric elbow strength and therefore the normative values have to be interpreted with caution.