Aims. In patients with a failed radial head arthroplasty (RHA), simple removal of the implant is an option. However, there is little information in the literature about the outcome of this procedure. The aim of this study was to review the mid-term clinical and radiological results, and the rate of complications and removal of the implant, in patients whose initial RHA was undertaken acutely for trauma involving the elbow. Methods. A total of 11 patients in whom removal of a RHA without reimplantation was undertaken as a revision procedure were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 8.4 years (6 to 11). The range of motion (ROM) and stability of the elbow were recorded. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The functional outcome was assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH). Radiological examination included the assessment of heterotopic ossification (HO), implant loosening, capitellar erosion, overlengthening, and osteoarthritis. Complications and the rate of further surgery were also recorded. Results. The indications for removal of the implant were stiffness in five patients, aseptic loosening in five, and pain attributed to the RHA in three. The mean time interval between RHA for trauma to removal was ten months (7 to 21). Preoperatively, three patients had overlengthening of the implant, three had capitellar erosion, six had HO, and four had radiological evidence of loosening. At the final follow-up, the mean the flexion-extension arc improved significantly by 38.2° (95% CI 20 to 59; p = 0.002) and the mean arc of prono-supination improved significantly by 20° (95% CI 0 to 72.5; p = 0.035). The mean pain VAS score improved significantly by 3.5 (95% CI 2 to 5.5; p = 0.004). The mean MEPS improved significantly by 27.5 (95% CI 17.5 to 42.5; p = 0.002). The mean OES improved significantly by 9 (95% CI 2.5 to 14; p = 0.012), and the mean DASH score improved significantly by 23.5 (95% CI 7.5 to 31.6; p = 0.012). Ten patients (91%) had HO and osteoarthritis. Two patients underwent further surgery due to stiffness and pain, respectively. Conclusion. Simple removal of the implant at revision surgery following a failed RHA introduced following trauma provides satisfactory mid-term results with an acceptable risk of complications. Osteoarthritis, instability, and radioulnar impingement were not problems in this series. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1327–1332

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the kinematics of the elbow following increasing length of the radius with implantation of radial head arthroplasties (RHAs) using dynamic radiostereometry (dRSA). Methods. Eight human donor arms were examined by dRSA during motor-controlled flexion and extension of the elbow with the forearm in an unloaded neutral position, and in pronation and supination with and without a 10 N valgus or varus load, respectively. The elbows were examined before and after RHA with stem lengths of anatomical size, + 2 mm, and + 4 mm. The ligaments were maintained intact by using a step-cut lateral humeral epicondylar osteotomy, allowing the RHAs to be repeatedly exchanged. Bone models were obtained from CT scans, and specialized software was used to match these models with the dRSA recordings. The flexion kinematics of the elbow were described using anatomical coordinate systems to define translations and rotations with six degrees of freedom. Results. The greatest kinematic changes in the elbows were seen with the longest, + 4 mm, implant, which imposed a mean joint distraction of 2.8 mm in the radiohumeral joint and of 1.1 mm in the ulnohumeral joint, an increased mean varus angle of up to 2.4° for both the radius and the ulna, a mean shift of the radius of 2.0 mm in the ulnar direction, and a mean shift of the ulna of 1.0 mm posteriorly. Conclusion. The kinematics of the elbow deviated increasingly from those of the native joint with a 2 mm to a 4 mm lengthening of the radius. This confirms the importance of restoring the natural length of the radius when undertaking RHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1165–1175

Aims. The aim of this study was to analyze how proximal radial neck resorption (PRNR) starts and progresses radiologically in two types of press-fit radial head arthroplasties (RHAs), and to investigate its clinical relevance. Methods. A total of 97 patients with RHA were analyzed: 56 received a bipolar RHA (Group 1) while 41 received an anatomical implant (Group 2). Radiographs were performed postoperatively and after three, six, nine, and 12 weeks, six, nine, 12, 18, and 24 months, and annually thereafter. PRNR was measured in all radiographs in the four radial neck quadrants. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), and the patient-assessed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score - Elbow (pASES-E) were used for the clinical assessment. Radiological signs of implant loosening were investigated. Results. The mean follow-up was six years (2 to 14). PRNR started after a mean of 7.5 weeks (SD 2.1) and progressed significantly during the first two years, by the end of which the bone resorption stabilized. PRNR was detected in 81% (n = 45) of patients in Group 1 and 88% (n = 36) in Group 2. The final mean PRNR was 3.0 mm (SD 2.3) in Group 1 and 3.7 mm (SD 2.5) in Group 2. The mean MEPS, QuickDASH, and pASES-E were 95.9 (SD 11.5), 4.4 (SD 9.2), and 94.8 (SD 10.9) in Group 1 and 92.2 (SD 16.2), 9.9 (SD 21.5), and 90.8 (SD 15) in Group 2, respectively. No significant differences were observed between groups in the clinical and radiological outcomes. No correlations were found between PRNR and the clinical results. Conclusion. PRNR after press-fit RHA is a common radiological finding that develops in the first 24 months before stabilizing definitively. PRNR does not affect the clinical results or implant survival in the mid term. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):905–911

We measured the tension in the interosseous membrane in six cadaveric forearms using an in vitro forearm testing system with the native radial head, after excision of the radial head and after metallic radial head replacement. The tension almost doubled after excision of the radial head during simulated rotation of the forearm (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in tension in the interosseous membrane between the native and radial head replacement states (p = 0.09). Maximal tension occurred in neutral rotation with both the native and the replaced radial head, but in pronation if the radial head was excised. Under an increasing axial load and with the forearm in a fixed position, the rate of increase in tension in the interosseous membrane was greater when the radial head was excised than for the native radial head or replacement states (p = 0.02). As there was no difference in tension between the native and radial head replacement states, a radial head replacement should provide a normal healing environment for the interosseous membrane after injury or following its reconstruction. Load sharing between the radius and ulna becomes normal after radial head Replacement. As excision of the radial head significantly increased the tension in the interosseous membrane it may potentially lead to its attritional failure over time. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1383–7

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

Aims. It has been hypothesized that proximal radial neck resorption (PRNR) following press-fit radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is due to stress-shielding. We compared two different press-fit stems by means of radiographs to investigate whether the shape and size of the stems are correlated with the degree of PRNR. Methods. The radiographs of 52 RHAs were analyzed both at 14 days postoperatively and after two years. A cylindrical stem and a conical stem were implanted in 22 patients (group 1) and 30 patients (group 2), respectively. The PRNR was measured in the four quadrants of the radial neck and the degree of stem filling was calculated by analyzing the ratio between the prosthetic stem diameter (PSD) and the medullary canal diameter (MCD) at the proximal portion of the stem (level A), halfway along the stem length (level B), and distally at the stem tip (level C). Results. Overall, 50 of the 52 patients displayed PRNR. The mean PRNR observed was 3.9 mm (0 to 7.4). The degree of endomedullary stem filling at levels A, B, and C was 96%, 90%, and 68% in group 1, and 96%, 72%, and 57%, in group 2, with differences being significant at levels B (p < 0.001) and C (p < 0.001). No significant correlations emerged between the severity of PRNR and the three stem/canal ratios either within each group or between the groups. Conclusion. PRNR in press-fit RHA appears to be independent of the shape and size of the stems. Other causes besides stem design should be investigated to explain completely this phenomenon. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):530–535

Aims

A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement.

Aims. Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and radiocapitellar arthroplasty, are rarely undertaken. This scoping review aims to outline the current research in this area to inform the development of future research. Methods. A scoping review was undertaken adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries, limited to studies published between 1 January 1990 and 7 February 2021. Endnote software was used for screening and selection, and included randomized trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, and case series of ten or more patients reporting the clinical outcomes of elbow arthroplasty. The results are presented as the number of types of studies, sample size, length of follow-up, clinical outcome domains and instruments used, sources of funding, and a narrative review. Results. A total of 362 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of total elbow arthroplasty (246; 68%), followed by radial head arthroplasty (100; 28%), distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (11; 3%), and radiocapitellar arthroplasty (5; 1%). Most were retrospective (326; 90%) and observational (315; 87%). The median sample size for all types of implant across all studies was 36 (interquartile range (IQR) 21 to 75). The median length of follow-up for all studies was 56 months (IQR 36 to 81). A total of 583 unique outcome descriptors were used and were categorized into 18 domains. A total of 105 instruments were used to measure 39 outcomes. Conclusion. We found that most of the literature dealing with elbow arthroplasty consists of retrospective observational studies with small sample sizes and short follow-up. Many outcomes have been used with many different instruments for their measurement, indicating a need to define a core set of outcomes and instruments for future research in this area. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1148–1155

Aims. The aim of this audit was to assess and improve the completeness and accuracy of the National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset for arthroplasty of the elbow. Methods. It was performed in two phases. In Phase 1, the completeness was assessed by comparing the NJR elbow dataset with the NHS England Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data between April 2012 and April 2020. In order to assess the accuracy of the data, the components of each arthroplasty recorded in the NJR were compared to the type of arthroplasty which was recorded. In Phase 2, a national collaborative audit was undertaken to evaluate the reasons for unmatched data, add missing arthroplasties, and evaluate the reasons for the recording of inaccurate arthroplasties and correct them. Results. Phase 1 identified 5,539 arthroplasties in HES which did not match an arthroplasty on the NJR, and 448 inaccurate arthroplasties from 254 hospitals. Most mismatched procedures (3,960 procedures; 71%) were radial head arthroplasties (RHAs). In Phase 2, 142 NHS hospitals with 3,640 (66%) mismatched and 314 (69%) inaccurate arthroplasties volunteered to assess their records. A large proportion of the unmatched data (3,000 arthroplasties; 82%) were confirmed as being missing from the NJR. The overall rate of completeness of the NJR elbow dataset improved from 63% to 83% following phase 2, and the completeness of total elbow arthroplasty data improved to 93%. Missing RHAs had the biggest impact on the overall completeness, but through the audit the number of RHAs in the NJR nearly doubled and completeness increased from 35% to 70%. The accuracy of data was 94% and improved to 98% after correcting 212 of the 448 inaccurately recorded arthroplasties. Conclusion. The rate of completeness of the NJR total elbow arthroplasty dataset is currently 93% and the accuracy is 98%. This audit identified challenges of data capture with regard to RHAs. Collaboration with a trauma and orthopaedic trainees through the British Orthopaedic Trainee Association improved the completeness and accuracy of the NJR elbow dataset, which will improve the validity of the reports and of the associated research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1461–1468

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of complex radial head fractures at mid-term follow-up, and determine whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or radial head arthroplasty (RHA) should be recommended for surgical treatment. Methods. Patients who underwent surgery for complex radial head fractures (Mason type III, ≥ three fragments) were divided into two groups (ORIF and RHA) and propensity score matching was used to individually match patients based on patient characteristics. Ultimately, 84 patients were included in this study. After a mean follow-up of 4.1 years (2.0 to 9.5), patients were invited for clinical and radiological assessment. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire score were evaluated. Results. Patients treated with ORIF showed significantly better postoperative range of motion for flexion and extension (121.1° (SD 16.4°) vs 108.1° (SD 25.8°); p = 0.018). Postoperative functional scores also showed significantly better results in the ORIF group (MEPS 90.1 (SD 13.6) vs 78 (SD 20.5); p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the complication rate (RHA 23.8% (n = 10) vs ORIF 26.2% (n = 11)). Implant-related complications occurred in six cases (14.3%) in the RHA group and in five cases (11.9%) in the ORIF group. Conclusion. Irrespective of the patient’s age, sex, type of injury, or number of fracture fragments, ORIF of the radial head should be attempted initially, if a stable reconstruction can be achieved, as it seems to provide a superior postoperative outcome for the patient compared to primary RHA. If reconstruction is not feasible, RHA is still a viable alternative. In the surgical treatment of complex radial head fractures, reconstruction shows superior postoperative outcomes compared to RHA. Good postoperative results can be achieved even after failed reconstruction and conversion to secondary RHA. Therefore, we encourage surgeons to favour reconstruction of complex radial head fractures, regardless of injury type or number of fragments, as long as a stable fixation can be achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1158–1164

Aims. To evaluate the outcomes of terrible triad injuries (TTIs) in mid-term follow-up and determine whether surgical treatment of the radial head influences clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods. Follow-up assessment of 88 patients with TTI (48 women, 40 men; mean age 57 years (18 to 82)) was performed after a mean of 4.5 years (2.0 to 9.4). The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score were evaluated. Radiographs of all patients were analyzed. Fracture types included 13 Mason type I, 16 type II, and 59 type III. Surgical treatment consisted of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in all type II and reconstructable type III fractures, while radial head arthroplasty (RHA) was performed if reconstruction was not possible. Results. At follow-up the mean MEPS was 87.1 (20 to 100); mean OES, 36.9 (6 to 48); and mean DASH score, 18.6 (0 to 90). Mean movement was 118° (30° to 150°) for extension to flexion and 162° (90° to 180°) for pronation to supination. The overall reoperation rate was 24%, with nine ORIF, ten RHA, and two patients without treatment to the radial head needing surgical revision. When treated with RHA, Mason type III fractures exhibited significantly inferior outcomes. Suboptimal results were also identified in patients with degenerative or heterotopic changes on their latest radiograph. In contrast, more favourable outcomes were detected in patients with successful radial head reconstruction after Mason type III fractures. Conclusion. Using a standardized protocol, sufficient elbow stability and good outcomes can be achieved in most TTIs. Although some bias in treatment allocation, with more severe injuries assigned to RHA, cannot be completely omitted, treatment of radial head fractures may have an independent effect on outcome, as patients subjected to RHA showed significantly inferior results compared to those subjected to reconstruction, in terms of elbow function, incidence of arthrosis, and postoperative complications. As RHA showed no apparent advantage in Mason type III injuries between the two treatment groups, we recommend reconstruction, providing stable fixation can be achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1620–1628

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of Monteggia-like lesions at midterm follow-up and to determine whether the surgical treatment of the radial head influences the clinical and radiological results. Patients and Methods. A total of 78 patients with a Monteggia-like lesion, including 44 women and 34 men with a mean age of 54.7 years (19 to 80), were available for assessment after a mean 4.6 years (2 to 9.2). The outcome was assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), Mayo Modified Wrist Score (MMWS), and The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. Radiographs were analyzed for all patients. A total of 12 Mason type I, 16 type II, and 36 type III fractures were included. Surgical treatment consisted of screw fixation for all type II and reconstructable type III fractures, while radial head arthroplasty (RHA) or excision was performed if reconstruction was not possible. Results. The mean MEPS was 88.9 (40 to 100), mean OES was 40.1 (25 to 48), mean MMWS was 88.1 (50 to 100), mean DASH score was 14.7 (0 to 60.2), and mean movement was 114° (. sd. 27) in extension/flexion and 155° (. sd. 37) in pronation/supination. Mason III fractures, particularly those with an associated coronoid fracture treated with RHA, had a significantly poorer outcome. Suboptimal results were also identified in patients who had degenerative changes or heterotopic ossification on their latest radiograph. In contrast, all patients with successful radial head reconstruction or excision had a good outcome. Conclusion. Good outcomes can be achieved in Monteggia-like lesions with Mason II and III fractures, when reconstruction is possible. Otherwise, RHA is a reliable option with satisfactory outcomes, especially in patients with ligamenteous instability. Whether the radial head should be excised remains debatable, although good results were achieved in patients with ligamentous stability and in those with complications after RHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1512–1519

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to define the standard minimum follow-up required to produce a reliable estimate of the rate of re-operation after radial head arthroplasty (RHA). The secondary objective was to define the leading reasons for re-operation. Materials and Methods. Four electronic databases, between January 2000 and March 2017 were searched. Articles reporting reasons for re-operation (Group I) and results (Group II) after RHA were included. In Group I, a meta-analysis was performed to obtain the standard minimum follow-up, the mean time to re-operation and the reason for failure. In Group II, the minimum follow-up for each study was compared with the standard minimum follow-up. Results. A total of 40 studies were analysed: three were Group I and included 80 implants and 37 were Group II and included 1192 implants. In Group I, the mean time to re-operation was 1.37 years (0 to 11.25), the standard minimum follow-up was 3.25 years; painful loosening was the main indication for re-operation. In Group II, 33 Group II articles (89.2%) reported a minimum follow-up of < 3.25 years. Conclusion. The literature does not provide a reliable estimate of the rate of re-operation after RHA. The reproducibility of results would be improved by using a minimum follow-up of three years combined with a consensus of the definition of the reasons for failure after RHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1561–70

Aims. Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) may be used in the treatment of non-reconstructable radial head fractures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mid-term clinical and radiographic results of RHA. Patients and Methods. Between 2002 and 2014, 77 RHAs were implanted in 54 men and 23 women with either acute injuries (54) or with traumatic sequelae (23) of a fracture of the radial head. Four designs of RHA were used, including the Guepar (Small Bone Innovations (SBi)/Stryker; 36), Evolutive (Aston Medical; 24), rHead RECON (SBi/Stryker; ten) or rHead STANDARD (SBi/Stryker; 7) prostheses. The mean follow-up was 74.0 months (standard deviation (. sd. ) 38.6; 24 to 141). The indication for further surgery, range of movement, mean Mayo Elbow Performance (MEP) score, quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (quickDASH) score, osteolysis and positioning of the implant were also assessed according to the design, and acute or delayed use. Results. The mean MEP and quickDASH scores were 90.2 (. sd. 14; 45 to 100), and 14.0 points (. sd. 12; 1.2 to 52.5), respectively. There were no significant differences between RHA performed in acute or delayed fashion. There were 30 re-operations (19 with, and 11 without removal of the implant) during the first three post-operative years. Painful loosening was the primary indication for removal in 14 patients. Short-stemmed prostheses (16 mm to 22 mm in length) were also associated with an increased risk of painful loosening (odds ratio 3.54 (1.02 to 12.2), p = 0.045). Radiocapitellar instability was the primary indication for re-operation with retention of the implant (5). The overall survival of the RHA, free from re-operation, was 60.8% (. sd. 5.7%) at ten years. Conclusion. Bipolar and press-fit RHA gives unsatisfactory mid-term outcomes in the treatment of acute fractures of the radial head or their sequelae. The outcome may vary according to the design of the implant. The rate of re-operation during the first three years is predictive of the long-term survival in tight-fitting RHAs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B1197–1203

Aims

Acute and chronic injuries of the interosseus membrane can result in longitudinal instability of the forearm. Reconstruction of the central band of the interosseus membrane can help to restore biomechanical stability. Different methods have been used to reconstruct the central band, including tendon grafts, bone-ligament-bone grafts, and synthetic grafts. This Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term (IDEAL) phase 1 study aims to review the clinical results of reconstruction using a synthetic braided cross-linked graft secured at either end with an Endobutton to restore the force balance between the bones of the forearm.

The Essex-Lopresti injury (ELI) of the forearm is a rare and serious condition which is often overlooked, leading to a poor outcome. . The purpose of this retrospective case study was to establish whether early surgery can give good medium-term results. . From a group of 295 patients with a fracture of the radial head, 12 patients were diagnosed with ELI on MRI which confirmed injury to the interosseous membrane (IOM) and ligament (IOL). They were treated by reduction and temporary Kirschner (K)-wire stabilisation of the distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ). In addition, eight patients had a radial head replacement, and two a radial head reconstruction. All patients were examined clinically and radiologically 59 months (25 to 90) after surgery when the mean Mayo Modified Wrist Score (MMWS) was 88.4 (78 to 94), the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MEPS) 86.7 (77 to 95) and the mean disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score 20.5 (16 to 31): all of these indicate a good outcome. In case of a high index of suspicion for ELI in patients with a radial head fracture, we recommend the following: confirmation of IOM and IOL injury with an early MRI scan; early surgery with reduction and temporary K-wire stabilisation of the DRUJ; preservation of the radial head if at all possible or replacement if not, and functional bracing in supination. This will increase the prospect of a good result, and avoid the complications of a missed diagnosis and the difficulties of late treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1385–91

Aims

The aim of this study was to review the provision of total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) in England, including the incidence, the characteristics of the patients and the service providers, the types of implant, and the outcomes.