BACKGROUND: The number of primary total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) performed is increasing annually, necessitating a rise in the number of revision procedures. No studies exist to illustrate reliable indications for revision arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the etiology of primary TEA failure on the failure rate of revision surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the patient charts of all revision TEAs performed at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. The primary outcome was revision failure, defined as the need for a second revision surgical procedure. Patients were organized into cohorts by etiology of primary implant failure. Failure rates, time to second revision, and average number of additional revisions were compared among cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients with a mean age of 62.7 years and minimum 2-year follow-up were included. The etiologies of failure identified were infection (n = 20), aseptic loosening (n = 17), periprosthetic fracture (n = 6), and bushing wear (n = 3). All noninfectious etiologies were grouped into an additional cohort. Patients who underwent revision for infection demonstrated a significantly greater failure rate and greater number of additional revisions per patient than those with aseptic loosening, those with periprosthetic fracture, and the noninfectious group, as well as a shorter time to failure than the noninfectious group. CONCLUSION: Patients in whom primary TEA fails because of infection are more likely to experience revision failure and require a greater number of subsequent operations than patients with other etiologies of primary TEA failure. These data question the efficacy of revision surgery in the treatment of infected TEAs.
BACKGROUND: The number of primary total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) performed is increasing annually, necessitating a rise in the number of revision procedures. No studies exist to illustrate reliable indications for revision arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the etiology of primary TEA failure on the failure rate of revision surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the patient charts of all revision TEAs performed at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. The primary outcome was revision failure, defined as the need for a second revision surgical procedure. Patients were organized into cohorts by etiology of primary implant failure. Failure rates, time to second revision, and average number of additional revisions were compared among cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients with a mean age of 62.7 years and minimum 2-year follow-up were included. The etiologies of failure identified were infection (n = 20), aseptic loosening (n = 17), periprosthetic fracture (n = 6), and bushing wear (n = 3). All noninfectious etiologies were grouped into an additional cohort. Patients who underwent revision for infection demonstrated a significantly greater failure rate and greater number of additional revisions per patient than those with aseptic loosening, those with periprosthetic fracture, and the noninfectious group, as well as a shorter time to failure than the noninfectious group. CONCLUSION:Patients in whom primary TEA fails because of infection are more likely to experience revision failure and require a greater number of subsequent operations than patients with other etiologies of primary TEA failure. These data question the efficacy of revision surgery in the treatment of infected TEAs.