A systematic review of the complications of contemporary total elbow arthroplasty.
arthritis
arthroplasty
complications
elbow
fractures
osteoarthritis
replacement
rheumatoid
Journal
Shoulder & elbow
ISSN: 1758-5732
Titre abrégé: Shoulder Elbow
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101506589
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
05
09
2019
accepted:
13
01
2020
entrez:
18
10
2021
pubmed:
19
10
2021
medline:
19
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Total elbow arthroplasty is a low volume procedure. We aimed to evaluate complication rates and cumulative percentages associated with the most frequently used contemporary implants and for the commonest indications. A systematic literature search of all studies reporting complications following total elbow arthroplasty with 12-month minimum follow-up was undertaken. Quality of studies was assessed with the Methodological-Index-for-Non-Randomised-studies criteria. British NJR data identified the most common UK prostheses and indications. The complication rates for all undesirable events contributing to patient outcome were extracted and cumulative percentages were calculated. One hundred seventeen studies were screened, 12 studies included, totalling 815 procedures. Mean follow-up was 3.8 years. The overall complication cumulative percentage was 60.7%, significantly higher than that seen in other joint arthroplasty, including a 6.5% deep infection rate. Nerve injury was comparable between implants at around 4.1%. Radiographic loosening had a cumulative rate of 17.2%. Revision for symptomatic aseptic loosening was 6.3%. This is the largest systematic review of the complications of total elbow arthroplasty. Surgeons should be aware of differing complications related to their implant of choice, each having its own specific complication. Trauma as an indication appears to have an increased complication rates compared to inflammatory arthropathy. There is a lack of literature regarding the independent results of osteoarthritis as a specific indication for total elbow arthroplasty.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Total elbow arthroplasty is a low volume procedure. We aimed to evaluate complication rates and cumulative percentages associated with the most frequently used contemporary implants and for the commonest indications.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic literature search of all studies reporting complications following total elbow arthroplasty with 12-month minimum follow-up was undertaken. Quality of studies was assessed with the Methodological-Index-for-Non-Randomised-studies criteria. British NJR data identified the most common UK prostheses and indications. The complication rates for all undesirable events contributing to patient outcome were extracted and cumulative percentages were calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
One hundred seventeen studies were screened, 12 studies included, totalling 815 procedures. Mean follow-up was 3.8 years. The overall complication cumulative percentage was 60.7%, significantly higher than that seen in other joint arthroplasty, including a 6.5% deep infection rate. Nerve injury was comparable between implants at around 4.1%. Radiographic loosening had a cumulative rate of 17.2%. Revision for symptomatic aseptic loosening was 6.3%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This is the largest systematic review of the complications of total elbow arthroplasty. Surgeons should be aware of differing complications related to their implant of choice, each having its own specific complication. Trauma as an indication appears to have an increased complication rates compared to inflammatory arthropathy. There is a lack of literature regarding the independent results of osteoarthritis as a specific indication for total elbow arthroplasty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34659489
doi: 10.1177/1758573220905629
pii: 10.1177_1758573220905629
pmc: PMC8512975
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
544-551Informations de copyright
© 2020 The British Elbow & Shoulder Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Nov;22(11):1461-8
pubmed: 24138820
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6
pubmed: 12956787
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Oct;90(10):1348-51
pubmed: 18827246
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Oct;26(10):1867-1872
pubmed: 28844418
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Sep;83(7):974-8
pubmed: 11603536
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Dec;25(8):1216-22.e1-3
pubmed: 19879720
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Apr;27(4):e98-e106
pubmed: 29444754
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Oct 19;98(20):1741-1748
pubmed: 27869626
World J Surg. 2008 Jun;32(6):942-4
pubmed: 18266027
Mod Rheumatol. 2015;25(6):849-53
pubmed: 25800637
Injury. 2000 Nov;31(9):687-92
pubmed: 11084155
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Mar;27(3):398-403
pubmed: 29306664
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013 Feb;99(1):10-20
pubmed: 23273377
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Oct;82(10):1379-86
pubmed: 11057465
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 May;135(5):595-600
pubmed: 25733382
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Sep;80(9):1327-35
pubmed: 9759818
Singapore Med J. 2005 Dec;46(12):718-22
pubmed: 16308647
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Aug;26(8):1348-1354
pubmed: 28601487
Open Orthop J. 2011 Mar 16;5:115-23
pubmed: 21584200
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12
pubmed: 19631508
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 May;86(5):940-7
pubmed: 15118036
J Orthop Trauma. 2011 Jun;25 Suppl 2:S66-70
pubmed: 21566478
Bone Joint J. 2016 Mar;98-B(3):381-6
pubmed: 26920964