The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 86:724-735 (2004)
© 2004 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Allograft-Prosthesis Composite for Revision of Catastrophic Failure of Total Elbow Arthroplasty
Pierre Mansat, MD, PhD1,
Robert A. Adams, PA2 and
Bernard F. Morrey, MD2
1 Service d'Orthopédie et Traumatologie, Hôpital Universitaire de
Toulouse-Purpan, Place du Dr Baylac, 31059, Toulouse, France
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W.,
Rochester, Minnesota 55905
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo
Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their
research or preparation of this manuscript. One or more of the authors
received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide
such benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana). No
commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits
to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable
or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or
associated.
Background: Revision of a failed total elbow arthroplasty is a
challenging procedure, often associated with bone deficiency. The purpose of
this investigation was to review our experience with a composite
allograft-implant reconstruction for patients with a failed total elbow
arthroplasty.
Methods: Thirteen patients (thirteen elbows) in whom a total elbow
arthroplasty had failed, primarily as a result of loosening of the humeral or
ulnar component, were operated on with use of an allograft-prosthesis
composite; the composite was placed on the humeral side in four of these
patients and on the ulnar side in nine. The delay between the last total elbow
arthroplasty and the allograft-prosthesis-composite procedure averaged eight
years.
Results: At an average of forty-two months after the revision, the
Mayo Elbow Performance Score was excellent for four elbows, good for three,
fair for one, and poor for five. Nine of the thirteen patients had no or only
slight pain in the elbow. The mean arc of flexion was 97°, with an average
of 28°(range, 0° to 60°) of extension to 125° (range, 100°
to 140°) of flexion. There were seven complications affecting seven
elbows, and five of the seven required a revision procedure. Deep infection
developed in four elbows, and the allograft-prosthesis composite had to be
removed from three. Two nonunions occurred at the allograft-humeral
junction.
Conclusions: An allograft-prosthesis composite can be a valuable
option in selected patients with a failed total elbow arthroplasty with
massive bone loss. The union and implant survival rates are high. Deep
infection remains the main complication. Hence, we recommend the pursuit of
other revision options, such as strut graft reconstruction, whenever possible
before resorting to the use of an allograft-prosthesis composite in the
surgical treatment of a failed total elbow arthroplasty with massive bone
loss.
Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level IV (case
series [no, or historical, control group]). See Instructions to Authors for a
complete description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Facebook Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. S. Athwal and B. F. Morrey
Revision Total Elbow Arthroplasty for Prosthetic Fractures
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
September 1, 2006;
88(9):
2017 - 2026.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. B. Sneftrup, S. L. Jensen, H. V. Johannsen, and J. O. Sojbjerg
Revision of failed total elbow arthroplasty with use of a linked implant
J Bone Joint Surg Br,
January 1, 2006;
88-B(1):
78 - 83.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|