Literature DB >> 30617613

Clinical results of revision total elbow arthroplasty: comparison of infected and non-infected total elbow arthroplasty.

Jae-Man Kwak1, Erica Kholinne2, Yucheng Sun1, Myung-Sun Kim3, Kyoung-Hwan Koh1, In-Ho Jeon4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is considered a successful treatment for several conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and comminuted fractures. However, failure rates as high as 62% have been reported, with many patients requiring surgical revision. Causes of failure requiring revision can be classified as infected or non-infected. This study evaluated the clinical and radiologic outcomes of TEA revision surgery according to causes of failure.
METHODS: Twenty patients undergoing revision TEAs in 2010-2015 were retrospectively evaluated. Mean follow-up was 52.7 months. Patients were categorized into infected and non-infected groups based on radiologic and serologic tests. Clinical outcomes included range of motion (ROM) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and radiological outcomes included loosening signs on anteroposterior (AP) and lateral plain radiographs at final follow-up. Complications were assessed in both groups.
RESULTS: Overall, mean MEPS was 79.7, and mean ROM arc was 97.9° at final follow-up. Nine patients underwent revision due to infection, and 11 due to non-infectious causes. Mean MEPS in these two groups was 75.6 and 83.5, respectively, and mean ROM arc for flexion-extension was 89.4° and 108°, respectively. Two (22%) of the nine patients in the infection group required second revision surgery due to recurrent infection. No patient in the non-infected group underwent second revision surgery. The most frequent complication in the infected group was osteolysis, observed in five patients, including four with symptomatic aseptic loosening and one with non-symptomatic osteolysis. Two patients in the non-infected group demonstrated a non-progressive radiolucent line, which was asymptomatic at final follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Revision TEA provided clinical improvement in elbow function and resulted in satisfactory outcomes. Outcomes were worse in the infected than in the non-infected groups. Comorbidities and older age were apparent risk factors for infected TEA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Infection; Revision; TEA; Total elbow arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30617613     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4267-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  24 in total

Review 1.  Prevalence and projections of total shoulder and elbow arthroplasty in the United States to 2015.

Authors:  Judd S Day; Edmund Lau; Kevin L Ong; Gerald R Williams; Matthew L Ramsey; Steven M Kurtz
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Clinical and radiographic outcome of revision surgery of total elbow prosthesis: midterm results in 19 cases.

Authors:  Jetske Viveen; Ante Prkic; Koen L M Koenraadt; Izaäk F Kodde; Bertram The; Denise Eygendaal
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Total elbow prosthesis loosening caused by ulnar component pistoning.

Authors:  Emilie V Cheung; Shawn W O'Driscoll
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Minimally constrained elbow implant arthroplasty: the discovery elbow system.

Authors:  Hill Hastings
Journal:  Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg       Date:  2004-03

5.  Two-stage revision for the treatment of the infected total elbow arthroplasty.

Authors:  C A Peach; S Nicoletti; T M Lawrence; D Stanley
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.082

6.  Extensive localized bone resorption in the femur following total hip replacement.

Authors:  W H Harris; A L Schiller; J M Scholler; R A Freiberg; R Scott
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1976-07       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 7.  Revision Total Elbow Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Miguel A Ramirez; Emilie V Cheung; Anand M Murthi
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.020

8.  Prevalence of modifiable surgical site infection risk factors in hip and knee joint arthroplasty patients at an urban academic hospital.

Authors:  Jason S Pruzansky; Michael J Bronson; Ronald P Grelsamer; Elton Strauss; Calin S Moucha
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Complications and revision rate compared by type of total elbow arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sang-Eun Park; Jung-Youn Kim; Sung-Wook Cho; Seung-Koo Rhee; Soon-Yong Kwon
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 10.  Review of the role of dynamic 18F-NaF PET in diagnosing and distinguishing between septic and aseptic loosening in hip prosthesis.

Authors:  Olu Adesanya; Andrew Sprowson; James Masters; Charles Hutchinson
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 2.359

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Revision surgery for periprosthetic elbow infection: eradication rate, complications, and functional outcomes-a systematic review.

Authors:  Michele Mercurio; Davide Castioni; Orlando Cosentino; Filippo Familiari; Bruno Iannò; Giorgio Gasparini; Olimpio Galasso
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 2.  Total Elbow Arthroplasty: Clinical Outcomes, Complications, and Revision Surgery.

Authors:  Jae-Man Kwak; Kyoung-Hwan Koh; In-Ho Jeon
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-11-12
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.