The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:2017-2026.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00878
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exam for this article:
 Shoulder/Elbow Test 16: Fall 2006 (publication date November 15, 2006; expi...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Athwal, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Morrey, B. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Athwal, G. S.
Right arrow Articles by Morrey, B. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Revision Total Elbow Arthroplasty for Prosthetic Fractures

George S. Athwal, MD, FRCSC1 and Bernard F. Morrey, MD2

1 Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Health Care, University of Western Ontario, 268 Grosvenor Street, Room L009, London, ON N6A 4L6, Canada
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN 55905

Investigation performed at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript. B.F.M. received royalties for the Coonrad-Morrey total elbow prosthesis. 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: Fractures of total elbow arthroplasty components are uncommon, and the literature provides little guidance regarding the management and outcomes of treatment of these complications. The goal of this report was to investigate the prevalence and management of fractures of ulnar and humeral components following total elbow arthroplasty and to review our experience with cement-within-cement reconstruction for revision following such fractures.

Methods: Between 1979 and 2003, twenty-four patients with a total of twenty-seven fractured total elbow arthroplasty components (seventeen ulnar and ten humeral) of different designs presented to our institution. Twenty-six implants underwent subsequent revision elbow arthroplasty at our institution. Fourteen of those revisions were done with a cement-within-cement technique, and twelve, with traditional methods. Twenty-one patients (twenty-three implants) were available for final follow-up, and data that had been acquired prospectively and entered into the institutional arthroplasty database were reviewed retrospectively. At the time of final follow-up, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was calculated and preoperative, postoperative, and most recent radiographs were examined for bone loss, bushing wear, and integrity of the bone-cement interface.

Results: The prevalences of humeral and ulnar component fracture following primary total elbow arthroplasties performed at our institution were 0.65% and 1.2%, respectively. At a mean of 5.1 years following revisions for those fractures, the MEPS was excellent for eight patients, good for five, fair for six, and poor for two. The average MEPS was 82 points following the revision total elbow arthroplasties done with the cement-within-cement technique and 78 points following the revisions done with the traditional method of cement removal and insertion of a revision component. Complications included seven intraoperative cortical perforations; five nerve injuries, two of which were permanent; three triceps avulsions; and one deep infection.

Conclusions: Implant fractures following total elbow arthroplasty are uncommon. They occur for several reasons, such as notch sensitivity, component design, and high stresses due to bone deficiency. Revision techniques, such as cement-within-cement reimplantation, are reliable for relieving pain and restoring function; however, the rate and spectrum of complications are a cause for concern.

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


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
A. Cil, C. J.H. Veillette, J. Sanchez-Sotelo, and B. F. Morrey
Linked Elbow Replacement: A Salvage Procedure for Distal Humeral Nonunion
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 2008; 90(9): 1939 - 1950.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
S. H. Goldberg, R. M. Urban, J. J. Jacobs, G. J.W. King, S. W. O'Driscoll, and M. S. Cohen
Modes of Wear After Semiconstrained Total Elbow Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2008; 90(3): 609 - 619.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. L. Ramsey, C. L. Getz, and B. O. Parsons
What's New in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2008; 90(3): 677 - 687.
[Full Text] [PDF]