At our institution between 1994 and 2003 a total of 36 revision total elbow Arthroplasties were performed in 34 patients. We clinically reviewed 25 patients and reviewed the notes and x-rays of all of them. Of eleven who were not reviewed clinically seven had died from an unrelated cause and four were unable to attend because of illness but we were able to include them as sufficient data were available in the notes. There were 24 female and 12 male, Average age was 67 years and twelve had elbow Arthroplasty in a non-dominant side. The average follow up was 6 years (range 5–13 years). The mean period between the primary and revision surgery was sixty three months (range 3–240 months). The indication for surgery was mainly for aseptic loosening in 15 cases, followed by septic loosening in twelve. All cases of septic loosening had two stage revisions. Other reasons for revision in this series include unstable elbows, implant fracture and peri-prosthetic fractures. Twelve of these revisions had a further revision for a variety of reasons at an average period of twenty eight months. Seven patients had thirteen complications in this series, two radial nerve palsies (one recovered), one distal humeral fracture, five cortical perforations and five triceps weakness. Most of the patients are satisfied with their elbows. The mean Mayo elbow Performance Score was 79 points. We conclude that revision Elbow Arthroplasty is a specialized surgery which is technically demanding, with high risk of complications and high re-revision rate and therefore, should be done in a specialised centres.
There is a paradox surrounding the use of bisphosphonates and bone biology. On one hand, it has been used to treat osteoporosis, osteogenesis imperfecta, Pagets disease, osteonecrosis, and other disorders associated with low bone mass. On the other hand, there have been a number of cases reported suggesting an association between treatment with bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaw. Answers to why this paradox exists lies in a better understanding of the pathogenesis of osteonecrosis and the mechanism of action of bisphosphonates. This seminar was created to explore the perspectives of three different medical disciplines concerning the use of bisphosphonates.
An earlier study (Clarke et al JBJS(Br) 2003) suggests that smaller bearings generate less wear. In that study bearings with different metallurgy and wear properties were grouped together, a potential confounding factor. The present study does not suffer from that error and our findings do not support the view that a larger bearing diameter leads to either an increase or decrease in metal ion generation.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of the Sheffield Ring Fixator (SRF) in the management of tibial deformity. Tibial deformity correction is challenging and requires an efficient system with strong bony fixation.Progressive correction is usually necessary due to the low compliance of the anatomical compartments. The SRF provides an effective solution, employing a combination of wire and screw fixation for metaphyseal corrections and all screw fixation for diaphyseal corrections. We reviewed a consecutive series of 50 patients with tibial deformity treated by progressive correction using the SRF between 1997 and 2000. The mean age was 33 years (range 18 to 65). Thirty nine cases were due to post-traumatic deformity and eleven as sequelae of childhood disease. Cases were analysed to ascertain the degree of deformity, treatment time, final outcome in terms of the accuracy of correction of deformity, and incidence of complications. All patients had significant angular deformity and 12 had a rotational deformity. 21 patients had clinically significant shortening. The mean deformities were: varus 10.5, valgus 13, posterior 11.8, anterior 20.6 (giving a mean oblique plane deformity of 24° ) rotation 17° and 26mm of shortening. Full correction was achieved in 45 of the 50 cases: Three patients had residual angular deformities of 5,7 and 10 degrees and two had residual shortening (15mm&
5mm). Satisfactory bone formation occurred in all cases. There were no significant complications. The mean correction time was dependent on whether or not lengthening had been performed (72 and 53 days respectively). From this study the correction time can be estimated as 2 days per degree plus an extra 0.5 days per degree for every centimetre of length to be gained. A knowledge of the efficiency of the system will enable estimation of treatment times to be made thereby facilitating the setting of goals for both patient and surgeon. Correction and total treatment times were satisfactory suggesting that the fixation system was both stable and yet sufficiently elastic to permit good bone healing. Even when the rotation translation systems were used prescribed movements led to satisfactory corrections suggesting few if any losses in the system. The SRF provides a strong and efficient system for the accurate and controlled correction of tibial deformities.