Revision Arthroplasty for the Aseptic Loosening after Semiconstrained Total Elbow Replacement: Midterm Results.
10.4055/jkoa.2008.43.4.465
- Author:
Jin Woong YI
1
;
Jae Keun KO
;
Nam Su CHO
;
Yong Girl RHEE
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Konyang University, Daejeon, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Elbow;
Aseptic loosening;
Revision total elbow replacement;
Strut allograft;
Impaction bone graft
- MeSH:
Activities of Daily Living;
Ankylosis;
Arthritis, Rheumatoid;
Arthropathy, Neurogenic;
Arthroplasty;
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Elbow;
Elbow;
Female;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Male;
Osteoarthritis;
Retrospective Studies;
Risk Factors;
Transplantation, Homologous;
Transplants
- From:The Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
2008;43(4):465-472
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To analyze the clinical results of revision arthroplasty for aseptic loosening after performing semiconstrained total elbow replacement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed fifteen patients that had undergone aseptic loosening after semiconstrained total elbow replacement who also had revision arthroplasty. There were 4 men and 11 women, with a mean age of 57 years. The average duration of follow-up was 54 months. The primary causes of arthroplasty were posttraumatic arthrosis (five cases), rheumatoid arthritis (four cases), primary osteoarthritis (four cases), ankylosis (one case) and Charcot joint (one case). For eleven (73%) elbows, the cementing technique was considered marginal or inadequate at the time of primary arthroplasty. An impaction bone graft was used in seven patients at revision, a strut allograft was used in four patients and cement alone was used in four patients. RESULTS: The average preoperative Mayo elbow performance score was 56.6 points; the average postoperative score was 84.5 points. At the latest follow-up, according to the Mayo elbow performance index, six patient elbows showed an excellent result, six patient elbows showed a good result, one patient elbow had a fair result and two patient elbows showed a poor result. Aseptic loosening occurred in three of four elbows that had been revised with cement only. CONCLUSION: Revision arthroplasty for aseptic loosening after semiconstrained total elbow replacement was useful for the relief of pain, maintenance of stability and the activities of daily living. A poor cementing technique and an inadequate selection of implant may be associated with loosening as a main risk factor. Revision using an impaction graft or strut allograft can be a reliable technique for treating a failed total elbow arthroplasty with massive bone loss.
