The December 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Clavicle fractures: is the evidence changing practice?; Humeral shaft fractures, and another meta-analysis…let’s wait for the trials now!; Hemiarthroplasty or total elbow arthroplasty for distal humeral fractures…what does the registry say?; What to do with a first-time shoulder dislocation?; Deprivation indices and minimal clinically important difference for patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; Prospective randomized clinical trial of arthroscopic repair versus debridement for partial subscapularis tears; Long-term follow-up following closed reduction and early movement for simple dislocation of the elbow; Sternoclavicular joint reconstruction for traumatic acute and chronic anterior and posterior instability

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

The December 2022 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Biceps tenotomy versus soft-tissue tenodesis in females aged 60 years and older with rotator cuff tears; Resistance training combined with corticosteroid injections or tendon needling in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy; Two-year functional outcomes of completely displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents; Patients who undergo rotator cuff repair can safely return to driving at two weeks postoperatively; Are two plates better than one? A systematic review of dual plating for acute midshaft clavicle fractures; Treatment of acute distal biceps tendon ruptures; Rotator cuff tendinopathy: disability associated with depression rather than pathology severity; Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty implications in young patients with post-traumatic sequelae

Aims. The ulna is an extremely rare location for primary bone tumours of the elbow in paediatrics. Although several reconstruction options are available, the optimal reconstruction method is still unknown due to the rarity of proximal ulna tumours. In this study, we report the outcomes of osteoarticular ulna allograft for the reconstruction of proximal ulna tumours. Methods. Medical profiles of 13 patients, who between March 2004 and November 2021 underwent osteoarticular ulna allograft reconstruction after the resection of the proximal ulna tumour, were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes were measured clinically by the assessment of elbow range of motion (ROM), stability, and function, and radiologically by the assessment of allograft-host junction union, recurrence, and joint degeneration. The elbow function was assessed objectively by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and subjectively by the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) questionnaire. Results. The mean follow-up of patients was 60.3 months (SD 28.5). The mean elbow flexion-extension ROM was 95.8° (SD 21). The mean MSTS of the patients was 84.4 (SD 8.2), the mean TESS was 83.8 (SD 6.7), and the mean MEPS was 79.2 (SD 11.5). All the patients had radiological union at the osteotomy site. Symptomatic osteoarthritic change was observed in three patients (23%), one of whom ended up with elbow joint fusion. Two patients (15.4%) had recurrence during the follow-up period. Surgical complications included two allograft fractures, two plate fractures, three medial instabilities, and two infections. Conclusion. Osteoarticular ulna allograft reconstruction provides acceptable functional outcomes. Despite a high rate of complications, it is still a valuable reconstruction method, particularly in skeletally immature patients who need their distal humerus physis for the rest of hand growth. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):749–757

Aims. This study aimed to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) under distribution- and anchor-based methods for the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and range of movement (ROM) after open elbow arthrolysis (OEA). We also assessed the proportion of patients who achieved MCID and SCB; and identified the factors associated with achieving MCID. Methods. A cohort of 265 patients treated by OEA were included. The MEPI and ROM were evaluated at baseline and at two-year follow-up. Distribution-based MDC was calculated with confidence intervals (CIs) reflecting 80% (MDC 80), 90% (MDC 90), and 95% (MDC 95) certainty, and MCID with changes from baseline to follow-up. Anchor-based MCID (anchored to somewhat satisfied) and SCB (very satisfied) were calculated using a five-level Likert satisfaction scale. Multivariate logistic regression of factors affecting MCID achievement was performed. Results. The MDC increased substantially based on selected CIs (MDC 80, MDC 90, and MDC 95), ranging from 5.0 to 7.6 points for the MEPI, and from 8.2° to 12.5° for ROM. The MCID of the MEPI were 8.3 points under distribution-based and 12.2 points under anchor-based methods; distribution- and anchor-based MCID of ROM were 14.1° and 25.0°. The SCB of the MEPI and ROM were 17.3 points and 43.4°, respectively. The proportion of the patients who attained anchor-based MCID for the MEPI and ROM were 74.0% and 94.7%, respectively; furthermore, 64.2% and 86.8% attained SCB. Non-dominant arm (p = 0.022), higher preoperative MEPI rating (p < 0.001), and postoperative visual analogue scale pain score (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of not achieving MCID for the MEPI, while atraumatic causes (p = 0.040) and higher preoperative ROM (p = 0.005) were independent risk factors for ROM. Conclusion. In patients undergoing OEA, the MCID for the increased MEPI is 12.2 points and 25° increased ROM. The SCB is 17.3 points and 43.3°, respectively. Future studies using the MEPI and ROM to assess OEA outcomes should report not only statistical significance but also clinical importance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):366–372

Aims. The conventionally described mechanism of distal biceps tendon rupture (DBTR) is of a ‘considerable extension force suddenly applied to a resisting, actively flexed forearm’. This has been commonly paraphrased as an ‘eccentric contracture to a flexed elbow’. Both definitions have been frequently used in the literature with little objective analysis or citation. The aim of the present study was to use video footage of real time distal biceps ruptures to revisit and objectively define the mechanism of injury. Methods. An online search identified 61 videos reporting a DBTR. Videos were independently reviewed by three surgeons to assess forearm rotation, elbow flexion, shoulder position, and type of muscle contraction being exerted at the time of rupture. Prospective data on mechanism of injury and arm position was also collected concurrently for 22 consecutive patients diagnosed with an acute DBTR in order to corroborate the video analysis. Results. Four videos were excluded, leaving 57 for final analysis. Mechanisms of injury included deadlift, bicep curls, calisthenics, arm wrestling, heavy lifting, and boxing. In all, 98% of ruptures occurred with the arm in supination and 89% occurred at 0° to 10° of elbow flexion. Regarding muscle activity, 88% occurred during isometric contraction, 7% during eccentric contraction, and 5% during concentric contraction. Interobserver correlation scores were calculated as 0.66 to 0.89 using the free-marginal Fleiss Kappa tool. The prospectively collected patient data was consistent with the video analysis, with 82% of injuries occurring in supination and 95% in relative elbow extension. Conclusion. Contrary to the classically described injury mechanism, in this study the usual arm position during DBTR was forearm supination and elbow extension, and the muscle contraction was typically isometric. This was demonstrated for both video analysis and ‘real’ patients across a range of activities leading to rupture. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):826–831

Aims. Reconstruction after osteoarticular resection of the proximal ulna for tumours is technically difficult and little has been written about the options that are available. We report a series of four patients who underwent radial neck to humeral trochlea transposition arthroplasty following proximal ulnar osteoarticular resection. Methods. Between July 2020 and July 2022, four patients with primary bone tumours of the ulna underwent radial neck to humeral trochlea transposition arthroplasty. Their mean age was 28 years (12 to 41). The functional outcome was assessed using the range of motion (ROM) of the elbow, rotation of the forearm and stability of the elbow, the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (MSTS), and the nine-item abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH-9) score. Results. All patients were available for follow-up at a mean of 33 months (25 to 43) and were disease-free. The mean flexion arc was 0° to 105°. Three patients had complications. One had neuropraxia of the ulnar nerve. The symptoms resolved after three months. In one patient, the screw used for fixation of the triceps tendon became exposed and was removed, six months postoperatively. One patient with wound dehiscence required a local flap for soft-tissue cover, four months postoperatively. At a mean follow-up of 33 months (25 to 43), the mean flexion arc was 0° to 105°. All patients had full supination (85°) but none had any pronation. The mean MSTS score was 23.5 (23 to 24) and mean QuickDASH-9 score was 26.13 (16.5 to 35.75). Three patients had varus-valgus instability on examination, although only one had a sense of instability while working. Conclusion. Radial neck to humeral trochlea transposition offers a satisfactory and cost-effective biological reconstructive option after osteoarticular resection of the proximal ulna, in the short term. It provides good elbow function and, being a biological reconstruction option using native bone, is likely to provide long-term stability and durability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1301–1305

Aims. This study aimed to answer the following questions: do 3D-printed models lead to a more accurate recognition of the pattern of complex fractures of the elbow?; do 3D-printed models lead to a more reliable recognition of the pattern of these injuries?; and do junior surgeons benefit more from 3D-printed models than senior surgeons?. Methods. A total of 15 orthopaedic trauma surgeons (seven juniors, eight seniors) evaluated 20 complex elbow fractures for their overall pattern (i.e. varus posterior medial rotational injury, terrible triad injury, radial head fracture with posterolateral dislocation, anterior (trans-)olecranon fracture-dislocation, posterior (trans-)olecranon fracture-dislocation) and their specific characteristics. First, fractures were assessed based on radiographs and 2D and 3D CT scans; and in a subsequent round, one month later, with additional 3D-printed models. Diagnostic accuracy (acc) and inter-surgeon reliability (κ) were determined for each assessment. Results. Accuracy significantly improved with 3D-printed models for the whole group on pattern recognition (acc. 2D/3D. = 0.62 vs acc. 3Dprint. = 0.69; Δacc = 0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.14); p = 0.025). A significant improvement was also seen in reliability for pattern recognition with the additional 3D-printed models (κ. 2D/3D. = 0.41 (moderate) vs κ. 3Dprint. = 0.59 (moderate); Δκ = 0.18 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.22); p ≤ 0.001). Accuracy was comparable between junior and senior surgeons with the 3D-printed model (acc. junior. = 0.70 vs acc. senior. = 0.68; Δacc = -0.02 (95% CI -0.17 to 0.13); p = 0.904). Reliability was also comparable between junior and senior surgeons without the 3D-printed model (κ. junior. = 0.39 (fair) vs κ. senior. = 0.43 (moderate); Δκ = 0.03 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.10); p = 0.318). However, junior surgeons showed greater improvement regarding reliability than seniors with 3D-printed models (κ. junior. = 0.65 (substantial) vs κ. senior. = 0.54 (moderate); Δκ = 0.11 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.18); p = 0.002). Conclusion. The use of 3D-printed models significantly improved the accuracy and reliability of recognizing the pattern of complex fractures of the elbow. However, the current long printing time and non-reusable materials could limit the usefulness of 3D-printed models in clinical practice. They could be suitable as a reusable tool for teaching residents. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):56–63

Aims. This study aimed to gather insights from elbow experts using the Delphi method to evaluate the influence of patient characteristics and fracture morphology on the choice between operative and nonoperative treatment for coronoid fractures. Methods. A three-round electronic (e-)modified Delphi survey study was performed between March and December 2023. A total of 55 elbow surgeons from Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America participated, with 48 completing all questionnaires (87%). The panellists evaluated the factors identified as important in literature for treatment decision-making, using a Likert scale ranging from "strongly influences me to recommend nonoperative treatment" (1) to "strongly influences me to recommend operative treatment" (5). Factors achieving Likert scores ≤ 2.0 or ≥ 4.0 were deemed influential for treatment recommendation. Stable consensus is defined as an agreement of ≥ 80% in the second and third rounds. Results. Of 68 factors considered important in the literature for treatment choice for coronoid fractures, 18 achieved a stable consensus to be influential. Influential factors with stable consensus that advocate for operative treatment were being a professional athlete, playing overhead sports, a history of subjective dislocation or subluxation during trauma, open fracture, crepitation with range of movement, > 2 mm opening during varus stress on radiological imaging, and having an anteromedial facet or basal coronoid fracture (O’Driscoll type 2 or 3). An anterolateral coronoid tip fracture ≤ 2 mm was the only influential factor with a stable consensus that advocates for nonoperative treatment. Most disagreement existed regarding the treatment for the terrible triad injury with an anterolateral coronoid tip fracture fragment ≤ 2 mm (O’Driscoll type 1 subtype 1). Conclusion. This study gives insights into areas of consensus among surveyed elbow surgeons in choosing between operative and nonoperative management of coronoid fractures. These findings should be used in conjunction with previous patient cohort studies when discussing treatment options with patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1150–1157

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

The February 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Arthroscopic capsular release or manipulation under anaesthesia for frozen shoulder?; Distal biceps repair through a single incision?; Distal biceps tendon ruptures: diagnostic strategy through physical examination; Postoperative multimodal opioid-sparing protocol vs standard opioid prescribing after knee or shoulder arthroscopy: a randomized clinical trial; Graft healing is more important than graft technique in massive rotator cuff tear; Subscapularis tenotomy versus peel after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty; Previous rotator cuff repair increases the risk of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Conservative versus operative treatment of acromial and scapular spine fractures following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

The April 2024 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Acute rehabilitation following traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (ARTISAN): pragmatic, multicentre, randomized controlled trial; Prevalence and predisposing factors of neuropathic pain in patients with rotator cuff tears; Are two plates better than one? The clavicle fracture reimagined; A single cell atlas of frozen shoulder capsule identifies features associated with inflammatory fibrosis resolution; Complication rates and deprivation go hand in hand with total shoulder arthroplasty; Longitudinal instability injuries of the forearm; A better than “best-fit circle” method for glenoid bone loss assessment; 3D supraspinatus muscle volume and intramuscular fatty infiltration after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

The August 2024 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Comparing augmented and nonaugmented locking-plate fixation for proximal humeral fractures in the elderly; Elevated five-year mortality following shoulder arthroplasty for fracture; Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol reduces discharge times compared with inhaled general anaesthesia in shoulder arthroscopy: a randomized controlled trial; The influence of obesity on outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; Humeral component version has no effect on outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial; What is a meaningful improvement after total shoulder arthroplasty by implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex?; The safety of corticosteroid injection prior to shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review; Mortality and subsequent fractures of patients with olecranon fractures compared to other upper limb osteoporotic fractures

The August 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup360 looks at: Motor control or strengthening exercises for rotator cuff-related shoulder pain? A multi-arm randomized controlled trial; Does the choice of antibiotic prophylaxis influence reoperation rate in primary shoulder arthroplasty?; Common shoulder injuries in sport: grading the evidence; The use of medial support screw was associated with axillary nerve injury after plate fixation of proximal humeral fracture using a minimally invasive deltoid-splitting approach; MRI predicts outcomes of conservative treatment in patients with lateral epicondylitis; Association between surgeon volume and patient outcomes after elective shoulder arthroplasty; Arthroscopic decompression of calcific tendinitis without cuff repair; Functional outcome after nonoperative management of minimally displaced greater tuberosity fractures and predictors of poorer patient experience

The June 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Proximal humerus fractures: what does the literature say now?; Infection risk of steroid injections and subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Surgical versus non-surgical management of humeral shaft fractures; Core outcome set needed for elbow arthroplasty; Minimally invasive approaches to locating radial nerve in the posterior humeral approach; Predictors of bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability; Does the addition of motor control or strengthening exercises improve rotator cuff-related shoulder pain?; Terminology and diagnostic criteria used in patients with subacromial pain syndrome

The August 2023 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: A comparison of functional cast and volar-flexion ulnar deviation for dorsally displaced distal radius fractures; Give your stable ankle fractures some AIR!; Early stabilization of rib fractures – an effective thing to do?; Locked plating versus nailing for proximal tibia fractures: A multicentre randomized controlled trial; Time to flap coverage in open tibia fractures; Does tranexamic acid affect the incidence of heterotropic ossification around the elbow?; High BMI – good or bad in surgical fixation of hip fractures?

Despite being one of the most common injuries around the elbow, the optimal treatment of olecranon fractures is far from established and stimulates debate among both general orthopaedic trauma surgeons and upper limb specialists. It is almost universally accepted that stable non-displaced fractures can be safely treated nonoperatively with minimal specialist input. Internal fixation is recommended for the vast majority of displaced fractures, with a range of techniques and implants to choose from. However, there is concern regarding the complication rates, largely related to symptomatic metalwork resulting in high rates of implant removal. As the number of elderly patients sustaining these injuries increases, we are becoming more aware of the issues associated with fixation in osteoporotic bone and the often fragile soft-tissue envelope in this group. Given this, there is evidence to support an increasing role for nonoperative management in this high-risk demographic group, even in those presenting with displaced and/or multifragmentary fracture patterns. This review summarizes the available literature to date, focusing predominantly on the management techniques and available implants for stable fractures of the olecranon. It also offers some insights into the potential avenues for future research, in the hope of addressing some of the pertinent questions that remain unanswered. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):112–123

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

The October 2024 Arthroplasty Roundup. 360. looks at: Breaking the mould: female representation in arthroplasty surgery remains low, with elbow leading the way; Post COVID-19: where are we with the 'catch up' in England and Wales?; Prevalence and clinical impact of sarcopenia in patients undergoing total joint replacement: a systematic review and a meta-analysis; Total joint replacement and sleep: the state of the evidence

Aims. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of two radiocapitellar prostheses in a large case series followed prospectively, with medium-term follow-up. Patients and Methods. A total of 31 patients with a mean age of 54 years (27 to 73) were analyzed; nine had primary osteoarthritis (OA) and 17 had post-traumatic OA, three had capitellar osteonecrosis, and two had a fracture. Overall, 17 Lateral Resurfacing Elbow (LRE) and 14 Uni-Elbow Radio-Capitellum Implant (UNI-E) arthroplasties were performed. Pre- and postoperative assessment involved the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH) score, and the modified American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons (m-ASES) score. Results. The mean follow-up was 6.8 years (3.8 to 11.5). The mean MEPS, m-ASES, and Q-DASH scores improved significantly by 50 (p < 0.001), 55 (p < 0.001), and 54 points (p < 0.001), respectively, with no differences being detected between the implants. Preoperative pronation and supination were worse in patients in whom the UNI-E was used. Two patients with the UNI-E implant had asymptomatic evidence of gross loosening. Conclusion. Radiocapitellar arthroplasty yielded a significant improvement in elbow function at a mean follow-up of 6.8 years, with a high implant survival rate when the LRE was used in patients with primary or post-traumatic OA, without radial head deformity, and when the UNI-E was used in patients in whom radial head excision was indicated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1362–1369