Sanchez-Sotelo, J.

Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) performed in the setting of massive proximal humeral bone loss often requires special reconstructive techniques. Restoration of the proximal part of the humerus with an allograft provides a number of theoretical benefits, including implant support, restoration of humeral length, deltoid tensioning, and an opportunity to repair the posterior aspect of the cuff to improve strength in external rotation and repair of the subscapularis to improve stability. However, reverse allograft-prosthesis composites (APCs) are costly, are technically demanding to use, and can be compromised by progressive allograft resorption. Methods: Between 2005 and 2012, the lead author used an APC reconstruction in 8 primary and 18 revision RTSAs (26 patients; mean age, 62 years; mean body mass index, 27.9 kg/m 2 ). The indications for the primary RTSAs included severe proximal humeral bone loss after trauma (n = 5) and tumor resection (n = 3). The indications in the revision setting were failed hemiarthroplasty (n = 11), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 4), and reverse arthroplasty (n = 3). The most common reason for revision was instability (n = 10). A compression plate was used for graft-to-host fixation in all shoulders. Shoulders were assessed for pain, motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, Neer score, revision or reoperation, radiographic evidence of graft union or resorption, and implant fixation. The mean duration of follow-up was 4 years (range, 2 to 10 years). Results: RTSA using an APC construct resulted in substantial improvements in pain scores (p < 0.0001), elevation (p < 0.0001), and external rotation (p = 0.004). With the numbers available, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between primary and revision cases. No patients required revision surgery for nonunion at the host-allograft junction. The mean time to union was 7 months, with 1 patient requiring bone-grafting for delayed union. Other complications included dislocation, deep infection, graft fracture, and periprosthetic fracture distal to the previous APC construct in 1 patient each. The 2 and 5-year revision-free survival rate was 96%. Conclusions: Reconstruction of proximal humeral bone loss with an APC at the time of primary or revision RTSA is safe and effective, with acceptable functional outcomes and complication rates. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Total elbow arthroplasty is commonly considered for elderly patients with comminuted distal humeral fractures. Satisfactory short-term outcomes have been reported, but long-term outcomes are unknown. Our purpose was to assess the long-term outcomes of total elbow arthroplasty after distal humeral fracture and to determine differences between elbows with or without inflammatory arthritis at the time of fracture. Methods: Forty-four total elbow arthroplasties were performed after distal humeral fracture; those patients were followed for a minimum of 10 years and were evaluated with regard to pain, motion, Mayo Elbow Performance Scores, complications, and reoperations. The outcomes in elbows with and without inflammatory arthritis were compared. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed. Results: Total elbow arthroplasty provided good pain relief and motion; the mean visual analog scale for pain was 0.6, the mean flexion was 123°, and the mean loss of extension was 24°. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 90.5 points, with 3 patients scoring <75 points. Five elbows (11%) developed deep infection, treated surgically with component retention (3 acute) or resection (2 chronic). Implant revision or resection was performed in 8 elbows (18%): 3 for infections (1 reimplantation and 2 resections), 3 for ulnar loosening (associated with periprosthetic fracture in 1), and 2 for ulnar component fractures. Additional periprosthetic fractures were observed in 5 elbows. The survival rates for elbows with rheumatoid arthritis were 85% at 5 years and 76% at 10 years, and the survival rates for elbows without rheumatoid arthritis were 92% at both 5 and 10 years. The most relevant risk factor for revision was male sex (hazard ratio, 12.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.7 to 93.6]). Conclusions: Selective use of total elbow arthroplasty to treat fractures of the distal part of the humerus for infirm, less active older patients and patients with inflammatory arthritis has acceptable longevity in surviving patients, but at the cost of a number of major complications. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

There is little information available at present regarding the mechanisms of failure of modern metallic radial head implants. Between 1998 and 2008, 44 consecutive patients (47 elbows) underwent removal of a failed metallic radial head replacement. In 13 patients (13 elbows) the initial operation had been undertaken within one week of a fracture of the radial head, at one to six weeks in seven patients (seven elbows) and more than six weeks (mean of 2.5 years (2 to 65 months)) in 22 patients (25 elbows). In the remaining two elbows the replacement was inserted for non-traumatic reasons. The most common indication for further surgery was painful loosening (31 elbows). Revision was undertaken for stiffness in 18 elbows, instability in nine, and deep infection in two. There were signs of over-lengthening of the radius in 11 elbows. Degenerative changes were found in all but one. Only three loose implants had been fixed with cement. Instability was not identified in any of the bipolar implants.