Osteitis Pubis

            Osteitis Pubis

                        Dr. KS Dhillon

Osteitis pubis is an aseptic painful inflammatory condition that affects the symphysis pubis. The onset is insidious and is characterized by erosion of one or both margins of the pubic symphysis followed by sclerosis.

It is self-limiting in the majority of the patients and may take a few months to years to resolve [1]. It was first described in 1924 by Edwin Beer, a urologist who described a series of patients with osteitis pubis after suprapubic surgery. At that time it was believed to be due to a subacute infection [2]. The literature describes osteitis pubis as a chronic condition that is difficult to diagnose and hard to treat [3]. 

In the 1950’s, osteitis pubis was believed to be a complication of urologic or gynecologic surgeries [1,2], athletic activities, major trauma, childbirth, rheumatologic disorders, or repeated minor trauma [1].

Osteitis pubis is more prevalent in individuals who play sports that involve kicking such as football and soccer, in marathon runners, and in basketball players. Other causes include traction micro trauma, childbirth in women, and instability of the symphysis pubis and sacroiliac joint [1]. The

incidence of osteitis pubis in athletes is between 0.5% to 7%. The prevalence in the general population has not been reported [3].

In men, osteitis pubis is more common between the ages of 30-40 years, while women are usually affected in their mid-30s. 

Symptoms of osteitis pubis include pain while climbing stairs, walking, sneezing, and on doing the Valsalva maneuver. Sometimes a clicking sensation may be felt when rising from a sitting position [1].

X-ray of the pelvis will show marginal irregularity, sclerosis of the pubic symphysis, and osteophyte formation. Sometimes there can be more than 2mm cephalad translation of one of the superior pubic rami and widening of the symphyseal cleft of more than 10mm [1,3]. 

The symphysis pubis is a fibrocartilaginous joint. An imbalance between the abdominal muscles and hip adductors can lead to osteitis pubis. The rectus abdominis, external oblique and internal oblique muscles, the conjoined tendon, and inguinal ligaments all have attachments to the pubic rami. The hip adductor muscles arise from the superior and inferior pubic rami [3]. The blood supply through the periosteal vascular plexus to the pubic bones and symphysis pubis is poor. Nerves from S2, S3, and S4 levels carry parasympathetic fibers, and nerves from L1 and L2 provide the sympathetic supply. 

Diagnosis is made clinically and can be confirmed by standard AP X-Ray of the pelvic. It will show irregularity of cortical margins and bone erosions of the symphysis pubis. Flamingo views i.e AP view with alternating right and left weight bearing may show more than 2mm movement of either side of symphysis [3-5]. A bone scan with Technetium 99m may show increased uptake of isotope by the pubic symphysis [5,6]. An MRI will show a low intensity signal on T1 weighted and a high-intensity signal on T2 weighted images. Bony sclerosis will have low intensity signal on both T1 and T2 weighted images [4,5]. 

Radiological findings often do not match the severity of the disease. Individuals can have these radiological findings and not have any symptoms. Osteitis pubis can mimic several other disease processes leading to unnecessary surgeries. These surgeries include appendectomy [5,7], hysterectomy, and prostatectomies [5].

It is important to differentiate osteitis pubis from osteomyelitis of the symphysis. Infection usually presents with fever and the x-ray will show lytic and sclerotic lesions rather than only sclerotic lesions with marginal irregularity [2,8].

Pathophysiology and Etiology

The true cause of osteitis pubis remains unknown. Several causes have been implicated in the development of osteitis pubis and these include trauma, low-grade infection, and venous congestion. The cause may be multifactorial.

Trauma as the cause of osteitis pubis was first proposed by Beer in the 1920s. Trauma to the pubic symphysis can lead to an inflammatory process involving the symphysis pubis. Osteitis pubis is seen in athletes with groin pain. This supports the theory that injury is a potential cause. Osteitis pubis is present in 10% to 80% of athletes complaining of groin and or suprapubic pain.

Microtears and injury to the pelvic girdle occurs in certain sports where there is rapid acceleration or deceleration, running, kicking, and rapid change of direction. This is commonly seen in individuals involved in athletic activities such as rugby, soccer, fencing, American football, ice hockey, and cricket [9].  

Low-grade infection is believed to be another cause of osteitis pubis, especially in post-surgical patients.

In one series of osteitis pubis after Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz (MMK) urethropexy, 7 patients failed conservative management and required

surgery. Bone cultures from the surgery demonstrated infection in five

patients (71%) [10]. In another series, where bone material was collected for culture, there was no infection found. Urine infection was, however, found in 44% of these patients [11].

Theories regarding thrombosis, vascular obstruction, and impaired venous flow have also been proposed. Steinbach et al [12] in the 1950s, believed that an obstruction of the prostatic plexus in men was a possible cause.

This venous plexus drains some of the posterior veins of the pubic symphysis. Hence, obstruction of the plexus could cause hyperemia with resultant bone demineralization. 

There is a close association between the veins of the urinary tract and those that drain the pubic symphysis. There are no valves in these vessels, hence infection-induced urinary stasis has also been proposed as an inciting factor for venous congestion [11].

The few studies that performed a histologic evaluation of osteitis pubis support inflammation as the cause of osteitis pubis. In a study by Coventry and Mitchell [11] of 45 patients diagnosed with osteitis pubis, 7 had tissue available for review. All the seven samples showed an inflammatory exudate composed of lymphocytes and plasma cells, with evidence of marrow fibrosis and thin layers of new bone in several samples.

Clinical Presentation

Patients with osteitis pubis usually present with generalized lower abdominal pain. The presentation can be broad and vague. The pain is localized to the lower abdomen and groin area, with radiation to the inner thigh. Sometimes there is disturbances of the gait. Discomfort is usually aggravated by activities that increase pressure on the pelvic girdle. This would include walking, sneezing, coughing, lying on the side, and walking up or down stairs. The pain can be sharp during these activities. The pain is commonly described as aching, throbbing, dull pain on cessation of the activity. Generalized symptoms often include malaise and sometimes a low-grade fever. 

Individuals with osteitis pubis classically have a “waddling” gait, a form of an antalgic gait.

A thorough history should be taken and a thorough physical examination should be carried out in patients presenting with possible osteitis pubis. The focus should be on any recent or remote urologic or pelvic surgical procedures, any local trauma, or repetitive injury to the area in question.

Symptoms of osteitis pubis appear approximately 6 to 8 weeks after an offending surgical procedure, but the interval can be shorter or longer [11]. Physical examination will show point tenderness over the pubic symphysis or lateral to the pubic symphysis. Physical examination tests that can elicit classic pain include the “pubic spring” test and the “lateral compression” test. The spring test is performed by placing downward pressure on both pubic rami at the same time and if pain is reproduced at the pubic symphysis this is considered a positive sign. The test can also be performed on either side to see if the pain is localized. A positive lateral compression test occurs when the patient is in the lateral decubitus position and downward pressure on the superior iliac wing produces pain at the pubic symphysis [13].

Other tests that may reproduce symptoms include the FABER test (flexion, abduction, and external rotation of the hip) and the “adductor squeeze” test, in which the patient squeezes the doctor's fist that is placed between the patient’s knees, can elicit classic osteitis pubis discomfort. 

Groin hernias should be ruled out. In men, a prostate examination should be carried out to rule out prostatitis. In women, a pelvic examination should be carried out to rule out other diagnoses such as pelvic inflammatory disease.

Osteomyelitis of the pubic symphysis should always be considered in the differential diagnosis, especially in the urologic patient who has undergone a surgical procedure. Patients with osteomyelitis typically appear more toxic, with high fever, and have laboratory evaluation indicative of infection [14].

Imaging 

Several radiologic modalities are available for the diagnosis of osteitis pubis. These include conventional radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), scintigraphy, and symphysography. A conventional radiograph will show irregularities of the joint margins, sclerosis, and osteophytes on the articular surfaces. There may be a widening of the pubic symphysis joint space.

In the early stages of the disease, the radiograph can be normal and a negative radiographic does not rule out osteitis pubis. A scintigraph will show focal accumulation of the injected radionuclide at or around the pubic symphysis on delayed scan images. For symphysography, direct injection of nonionic contrast directly into the symphyseal joint is carried out. The injection will provoke the symptoms which helps to confirm the diagnosis. At the same time, steroids and local anesthetic can be injected to obtain pain relief [15].

An MRI is probably the best imaging modality to diagnose osteitis pubis. It is because of its tissue inflammatory component, which can easily be demonstrated on MRI. With an MRI fine tissue details can be obtained to help differentiate osteitis pubis from osteomyelitis. Other findings found on an MRI include periarticular edema, fluid in the pubic symphyseal joint, and bone marrow edema in acute osteitis pubis lasting less than 6 months. In chronic cases lasting longer than 6 months, subchondral sclerosis, bone resorption, and osteophytes can be seen [16].

Treatment 

Treatment modalities for osteitis pubis range from conservative treatment with rest to invasive surgical interventions. No prospective randomized controlled trial has been carried out to determine the best treatment approach since the condition is quite rare.

Initially, conservative treatment is carried out and the patient is told that this condition takes time to resolve. Conservative treatment includes a short period of bed rest followed by progressive ambulation with or without crutches or a cane. Activities that place stress on the pelvic girdle are minimized. Local cold or hot therapy over the pubic symphysis can also be used. Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents such as ibuprofen or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors are also used.

Kavroudakis et al [17] reported the results of a small series of nonathlete women who were treated conservatively for osteitis pubis. Their series included 8 patients. The patients were advised bed rest for 4 to 6 days followed by ambulation with the assistance of crutches or a cane. All were treated with oral anti-inflammatory medications. At 2-month follow-up, they were encouraged to start a physical therapy program to strengthen the hip and abdominal muscles and improve adductor flexibility. Five patients were completely pain-free at 9 months and did not relapse at an average follow up of 24 months. Two patients continued to have pain with intense physical activity. One completely failed conservative treatment and was successfully treated by pubic symphysiodesis.

Since significant inflammation is present in these patients an oral glucocorticoid course with or without an appropriate taper can be attempted. When conservative measures fail, local corticosteroid injection with or without adjuvant anesthetic into the pubic symphysis can be attempted. This has been found to be effective with rapid reduction in pain in most patients.  

There is very limited data (only a few case reports/series) on the use of anticoagulants for the treatment of osteitis pubis. If the thrombosis or venous congestion theory is correct, then anticoagulation may help to improve symptoms and treat these patients.

Holmgren [18] reported a series of three postoperative patients (1 following prostatectomy and 2 others following vaginal delivery), who developed osteitis pubis and were successfully treated with heparin therapy.

In another series of three patients with osteitis pubis following prostatectomy, conservative treatment failed and clinical improvement was only seen with initiation of intravenous heparin therapy [19]. 

Watkin et al [20] published a report of a patient with intractable pubic symphyseal pain following uncomplicated retropubic prostatectomy for benign prostate hyperplasia, who failed conservative treatment, but was successful treatment with a several-month course of warfarin, resulting in complete resolution of symptoms. 

If all the above procedures fail, more invasive surgical options remain available. The best surgical approach remains unknown given the low numbers of surgically treated cases of osteitis pubis and a paucity of data. Surgical options include arthrodesis, curettage, and wedge and wide resection of the pubic symphysis. These surgical options can be associated with complications. Resection of the anterior pelvis can lead to pelvic instability. 

Moore et al [21] published a report on two patients who presented with severe debilitation from posterior pelvic instability 12-18 years after resection of the pubic symphysis for treatment of osteitis pubis.

Mehin et al [22] carried out a small case review of 10 of their own patients and a larger review of the literature for patients undergoing surgical treatment for osteitis pubis. They recommended curettage of the joint for simple cases. In patients with osteitis pubis following urologic surgery, they recommended wedge resection, especially if there are concerns for possible residual infection. Surgical intervention is withheld until conservative treatments fail. In the postsurgical patient or in patients with severe symptoms, earlier surgical intervention is recommended.

Conclusions

The exact etiology of osteitis pubis is not completely understood and remains unclear. It is a potentially debilitating entity. It is believed to be a noninfectious inflammation of the pubic symphysis. It is seen most commonly in athletes. Approximately 1 in 100 patients undergoing urologic procedures are at risk for developing this condition. The onset is usually insidious and it occurs about 6 to 8 weeks after the index surgical procedure.

The diagnosis is usually a clinical one. A thorough history is taken and physical examination is carried out. The examination will include resisted adductor testing. Osteomyelitis has to be ruled out. 

The treatment is usually conservative. It consists of rest, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and physical therapy. Invasive surgical techniques are used if conservative treatment fails. Osteitis pubis can be a crippling condition. It is, however, usually self-limiting.

References

1. Fricker PA, Taunton JE, Ammann W. Osteitis pubis in athletes: Infection, inflammation or injury? Sports Med 1991; 12:266-279.

2. Beer E. Periostitis of the symphysis and descending rami of the pubis following suprapubic operations. Int J Med Surg 1924; 37:224-225.

3. Rodriguez C, Miguel A, Lima H, et al. Osteitis pubis syndrome in professional soccer athlete: A case report. J Athl Train 2001; 36:437-440.

4. De Paulis F, Cacchio A, Michelini O, et al. Sports injuries in the pelvis and hip: diagnostic Imaging. Eur J Radiol 1998 27:S49-S59.

5. Andrews SK, Carek PJ, MS. Osteitis pubis: a diagnosis for the family physician. J Am Board Fam Pract 1998; 11:291-295.

6. Mulhall KJ, McKenna J, Alan Walsh A, et al. Osteitis pubis in professional soccer players: A report of outcome with symphyseal curettage in cases refractory to conservative management. Clin J Sport Med 2002; 12:179-181.

7. Pizzarello LD, Golden GT, Shaw A. Acute abdominal pain caused by ostitis pubis. Am J Surg 1974; 48:1027-1028.

8. Sexton DJ, Heskestad L, Lambeth WR, et al. Postoperative pubic osteomyelitis misdiagnosed as osteitis pubis: report of four cases and review. Clin Infect Dis 1993; 7: 695-700.

9. Johnson R. Osteitis pubis. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2003;2:98-102.

10. Kammerer-Doak DN, Cornella JL, Magrina JF, et al. Osteitis pubis after Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz urethropexy: a pubic osteomyelitis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:586-590.

11. Coventry MB, Mitchell WC. Osteitis pubis: observations based on a study of 45 patients. JAMA. 1961;178:898-905.

12. Steinbach HL, Petrakis NL, Gilfillan RS, Smith DR. The pathogenesis of osteitis pubis. J Urol. 1955;74:810.

13. Hennion DR, deWeber K. Osteitis pubis. In: Miller MD, Hart J, MacKnight JM, eds. Essential Orthopaedics. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2010:532-534.

14. Pauli S, Willemsen P, Declerck K, et al. Osteomyelitis pubis versus osteitis pubis: a case presentation and review of the literature. Br J Sports Med. 2002;36:71-73.

15. O’Connell MJ, Powell T, McCaffrey NM, et al. Symphyseal cleft injection in the diagnosis and treatment of osteitis pubis in athletes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:955-959.

16. Kunduracioglu B, Yilmaz C, Yorubulut M, Kudas S. Magnetic resonance findings of osteitis pubis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:535-539.

17. Kavroudakis E, Karampinas PK, Evangelopoulos DS, Vlamis J. Treatment of osteitis pubis in non-athlete female patients. The Open Orthopaedics Journal. 2011;5:331-334.

18. Holmgren G. The treatment of osteitis pubis with anticoagulants. A report of three cases in Africans. Cent Afr J Med. 1972;18:10-12.

19. Merimsky E, Canetti R, Firstater M. Osteitis pubis: treatment by heparinisation. Br J Urol. 1981;53:154- 156.

20. Watkin NA, Gallegos CR, Moisey CU, Charlton CA. Osteitis pubis. A case of successful treatment with anticoagulants. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;66:569-570.

21. Moore RS Jr, Stover MD, Matta JM. Late posterior instability of the pelvis after resection of the symphysis pubis for the treatment of osteitis pubis. A report of two cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:1043-1048. 

22. Mehin R, Meek R, O’Brien P, Blachut P. Surgery for osteitis pubis. Can J Surg. 2006;49:170-176.

Total Elbow Arthroplasty

       Total Elbow Arthroplasty

                            DR KS DHILLON

Introduction

Total elbow replacement was initially developed to manage end-stage rheumatoid arthritis of the elbow [1]. Over the years the indications have expanded to include comminuted fractures, osteoarthritis, and posttraumatic arthritis of the elbow [2-10]. It is sometimes also indicated for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, hemophilic arthropathy, and primary or metastatic tumors. 

With total elbow replacement, long-term complications, such as infection, instability, aseptic loosening, and periprosthetic fracture, remain a problem [11-16]. 

Total elbow arthroplasty is a relatively rare procedure and most surgeons do not have much experience with the procedure. Furthermore, there is a lack of long-term outcome data for elbow arthroplasty.

History of total elbow replacement  

The elbow joint has been widely regarded as homologous to the knee joint. The original uniaxial hinge design of the joint replacements developed for total elbow replacement in the late 1960s was exactly the same as those developed for total knee replacement. The initial results of these replacements were good but there were early failures due to implant wear and loosening.

During the 1970s, designs of knee replacement evolved from uniaxial hinges into unlinked components that relied upon the ligaments for stability, and then into the more intrinsically stable condylar-shaped designs, similar to those used today.

The development of total elbow replacement went from the uniaxial hinge design to a less constrained hinge (linked) design to unlinked design where the components were not joined by an axle mechanism. In the linked designs components are unlikely to dislocate or disassociate. With the unlinked design component dislocation and dissociation can be a problem.

The Kudo prosthesis was first reported in 1990 and is one of the most popular unlinked total elbow designs. The unlinked total elbow has no mechanical connection between the humeral and ulnar components and hence has advantages of near normal elbow kinematics and preservation of bone stock. The unlinked design was developed to overcome loosening of the hinge prosthesis. The unlinked prosthesis is suitable only for patients with limited bone loss or limited deformity and good ligament function. 

They have low intrinsic stability and rely on the medial and lateral collateral ligaments, the posterior capsule, and surrounding muscles for stability.

The Linked Semiconstrained Design (Coonrad-Morrey) is a semi-constrained design featuring a central cylindrical bearing and two side bearings. It is one of the most frequently used devices for elbow replacement. It allows some varus-valgus motion which reduces stress concentration on the bone-cement interface. This design has been used to treat conditions such as degenerative arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and elbow fractures. Satisfactory outcomes have been reported with long-term follow-up [17-21]. Aseptic loosening with bushing wear is a leading complication. 

The Discovery Elbow System is a semi-constrained condylar bearing design. It is a hemispherical linked prosthesis designed to reduce complications such as bushing wear associated with the semiconstrained prosthesis. It does not have a true hinge, and it anatomically reproduces the axis of elbow motion. Its floppy hinge allows for 6°–8° of varus-valgus and rotational motion.

More recently a convertible design (Latitude System) has been developed that allows the surgeons to choose between a nonconstrained and semiconstrained prosthesis [22,23]. A semi-constrained hinge can be created by applying a modular component to the ulnar prosthesis if the surgeon has concerns regarding collateral ligament insufficiency or implant stability. The 2-year follow-up outcome of the convertible elbow prosthesis was comparable with historical controls. However, no long-term follow-up data is available [22,23].

Clinical Outcomes and Survival Rates

Welsink et al [24] carried out a systematic review of total elbow arthroplasty. Their review included 73 articles involving a total of 9,379 elbow arthroplasties. The level of evidence was primarily Level IV. 

Nineteen different designs of total elbow arthroplasty implants are included in the review. The most common indication for elbow arthroplasty was rheumatoid arthritis (70%). 

The weighted mean survival rate for the linked prosthesis was 85.5% at 7.8 years and for the unlinked prosthesis 74% at 12.3 years. The range of motion after elbow arthroplasty was good overall, with a mean flexion of 129° and a mean extension lag of 30°. The complication rates ranged from 11% to 38%. Clinical loosening was the most frequent complication (7%).

The results of elbow arthroplasty are respectable overall. There are small differences between designs. The survival and complication rates are still not as favorable as those following arthroplasties in other joints.

Prkic et al [25] carried out a systematic review on modes of failure of total elbow arthroplasty. Seventy articles were included in the systematic review. A total of 9308 individual total elbow arthroplasties were identified with 1253 revisions (13.5%). The most prevalent reason for the revision was aseptic loosening (38%), followed by deep infection (19%) and periprosthetic fractures (12%).

The revision rates for rheumatoid arthritis are significantly higher than for trauma and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Aseptic loosening is less in linked implants. Infections and periprosthetic fractures did not differ between the linked and unlinked designs. 

Krukhaug et al [26] using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 1994 to 2016, reported that overall outcomes and survival rates of elbow arthroplasty showed an overall 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, and 20-year survival rates of 92%, 81%, 71%, and 61%, respectively. They found that risk factors for revision were a diagnosis of sequelae after trauma and cementless fixation of the ulna component. They also found that the most frequent reason for revision surgery was aseptic loosening, followed by defective polyethylene, dislocation, and infection. The causes of revision were to some degree implant specific.

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)

The incidence of elbow arthroplasties performed for inflammatory arthritis is decreasing. This is probably due to the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [14,24]. Despite this progress in the medical treatment of RA, there still are severe cases who need elbow arthroplasty.

Hildebrand et al [27] in a study reported a mean patient satisfaction of 9.2 out of a possible 10 points on the functional outcome of patients with inflammatory arthritis who underwent elbow arthroplasty.

 A study by Mansat et al [28] showed that the treatment outcome after elbow arthroplasty for RA with a minimum 2-year follow-up had a 97% survival rate at 5 years and 85% at 10 years. At an average of 7 years of follow-up (range, 2–16 years), the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 91 points (range, 55–100 points), and the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 34 points (range, 0–75 points). There was a significant improvement in the MEPS and in all range of motion scores at the latest follow-up in comparison to preoperative values.

Distal Humerus Fracture

Many surgeons now select elbow arthroplasty to treat comminuted distal humerus fractures. The indications for elbow arthroplasty for trauma-related disease has expanded [5,7-9,29-33].

Long-term outcomes for elbow arthroplasty are not available due to the paucity of data. Hence, the use of elbow arthroplasty for treatment in young individuals is debatable [32,33].

Rajaee et al [9] compared elbow arthroplasty with open reduction and internal fixation using data obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for 2002–2012. The data showed that the annual frequency of elbow arthroplasty increased 2.6-fold in elderly patients with distal humerus fractures, and elbow arthroplasty is the preferred treatment alternative to internal fixation in elderly patients with complex distal humerus fractures that are not amenable to a stable fixation.

Barco et al [34] in a study of 44 elbow arthroplasties after distal humeral fracture reported that the mean visual analog scale score for pain was 0.6, the mean flexion was 123°, and the mean loss of extension was 24°. The mean MEPS was 90.5 points, with three patients scoring less than 75 points.

Posttraumatic Arthritis

Total elbow arthroplasty is a treatment option for advanced posttraumatic arthritis of the elbow. The outcome, however, is not satisfactory when compared to other indications [20,24,35-38]. 

Patients with posttraumatic OA typically have more than 1 previous surgery with scars and severe limitation of movements due to soft-tissue contraction. This leads to difficulty in approaching and managing the soft tissue. The prognosis is worse in patients who develop traumatic arthritis after fracture than in patients with inflammatory arthritis [26,39,40]. 

Hildebrand et al [27] reported the functional outcome of elbow arthroplasty in patients with posttraumatic arthritis. They found that the mean score on the Mayo Elbow Performance Index was significantly higher for the group with inflammatory arthritis than for the group with a traumatic or posttraumatic condition at the latest follow-up. 

Management of younger patients with advanced posttraumatic arthritis is a difficult dilemma. Celli and Morrey [41] reported a series of 55 elbow arthroplasties performed in patients aged less than 40 years with a mean 7.5-year follow-up. Thirty-six patients (65%) were considered to be excellent and fifteen (27%) were good.

Similarly, Park et al [42] reported a series of 23 elbow arthroplasties  performed in patients aged less than 40 years with a mean follow-up of 10 years. They reported favorable outcomes but 25% of elbows developed complications, with 22% requiring reoperation.

Primary OA

The elbow is not a weight-bearing joint, hence, the incidence of primary OA is rarer than that in other joints. The incidence is higher in individuals who overuse the upper extremities as in manual laborers, throwing athletes, and wheelchair-assisted individuals. Patients with primary OA usually have higher functional demands and capabilities than those with inflammatory arthritis [43]. Therefore it is critical to communicate with the patient regarding postoperative management, and the surgeon must stress that the risk of complications could increase if the patient continues to have the same habitual pattern of elbow use after the surgery. 

Schoch et al [44] reported the outcome of 18 elbow replacements for primary OA at a mean follow-up of 8.9 years (range, 2-20 years). Three elbows sustained mechanical failures. Fifteen elbows without mechanical failure were examined. Pain improved from 3.6 to 1.5. The range of motion remained clinically unchanged, with preoperative flexion contractures not improving. The Mayo Elbow Performance Scores were available for 13 elbows without mechanical failure, averaging 81.5 points (range, 60-100 points). Complications occurred in seven elbows, but the incidence of mechanical failure was low.

Complications of elbow arthroplasty

The significant complication rate following elbow arthroplasty ranges from 20% to 45%. It is very much higher than the complication rate associated with other major joint replacements [45,46]. 

Gschwend et al [47] in 1996 published a review of the world literature from 1986–1992, in which they analyzed 22 publications reporting 828 cases of elbow arthroplasty. They found an overall complication rate of 43%. These included aseptic loosening, dislocation, subluxation, infections, ulnar nerve complications, disassembly, intraoperative fractures, instability, mechanical failure of prosthetic components, and ectopic bone formation.

Voloshin et al [46] in 2011 noted that despite advances in prosthetic design and surgical technique for elbow arthroplasty over the previous decade, there had been no further systematic review of the literature reporting the complications of elbow arthroplasty since the mid-1990s. They noted that the rates of clinically significant loosening were similar between linked and unlinked designs. They found that the instability rate associated with unlinked devices was significantly greater than with linked implants. Bushing wear and disassembly is more often seen with linked implants.  

In 2015, Plaschke et al [48] reported a retrospective case-controlled study of 167 elbow arthroplasties carried out between 1980 and 2008.  They also did not find any difference in the results between linked and unlinked elbow arthroplasties. They stated that revision elbow arthroplasty is complicated surgery, that yields acceptable but poorer results than after primary elbow arthroplasty.

In 2018, Pham et al [49] reported their results using the Coonrad-Morrey elbow arthroplasty in 46 rheumatoid patients (54 elbows) between 1997 and 2012 with an average follow-up of 7 years (range 2–16 years). They found bushing wear in 16 elbows (29%), and there were 14 complications (26%). Revision surgery was necessary in 7 (13%). They concluded that the results were satisfactory but the rate of complications was high although the rate of implant revision remained low.

Infection, periprosthetic fracture, and aseptic loosening, are the most concerning common complications primarily requiring revision surgery.

Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Despite the use of modern surgical techniques and antibiotic prophylaxis, infection remains one of the leading complications of elbow arthroplasty. The reported rates range from 1% to 12.5% [25,50-53]. Few studies have evaluated the management of elbow periprosthetic infection after elbow arthroplasty because of its rarity. The elbow is susceptible to infection owing to the lack of soft-tissue covering from skin to bone [51,54-57].

Great care has to be taken to prevent infection. There has to be proper patient selection and aseptic surgical conditioning. In the patient selection stage, the surgeon must be aware of the risk of high comorbidity with diabetes [56,58-61]. There are several studies that have reported a a strong correlation between infection and comorbidity in patients with elbow arthroplasty [50,51,56,62,63].

Although there is no fully established consensus, two-stage revision surgery is commonly recommended for periprosthetic infection [63-65]. Zmistowski et al [66] reported that two-stage revisions led to a decreased rate of recurrent infection and a 50% success rate over 3 years. They recommended a prosthesis-free interval of at least 3 months. The most common pathogen causing the infection was Staphylococcus aureus [50,

53,54,55,57].

Aseptic Loosening 

Aseptic loosening of the elbow arthroplasty is one of the most common causes of revision surgery [14,15,16, 24]. 

In patients with elbow arthroplasty, the transmission of nonanatomic force results in stress shielding at the humeral condyles and olecranon, leading to progressive bone resorption. This bone resorption results in an increase of force on the arm between the hinge and the site where the stem transfers most of its load. This not only predisposes to loosening of the stem but also increases the likelihood of arthroplasty failure due to polyethylene wear, mechanical failure, or periprosthetic fracture [11,67,68,69,70].

Loose stems are amenable to revision elbow arthroplasty by using a longer stem, with bone grafting if indicated [67,68, 70].

King et al [71] reported a series of 31 patients who underwent revision elbow arthroplasty due to aseptic loosening with a mean follow-up of 6 years. The mean MEPS was 87, and the mean flexion-extension arc was more than 100°.

Triceps Insufficiency

Triceps insufficiency can occur after a failed surgical reattachment, especially when the tendon quality is poor or a traumatic rupture of the tendon is present. The rate of triceps insufficiently varies between 0.4% and 2.4% after elbow arthroplasty using various triceps-detaching approaches [72,73]. To reduce the risk of postoperative triceps weakness and rupture, a triceps-sparing approach is usually used for primary elbow arthroplasty. 

Several studies suggest that a triceps-sparing approach for primary elbow arthroplasty leads to fewer postoperative triceps ruptures as well as a better postoperative range of motion and extension torque [24,73].

Dachs et al [74] compared the triceps-sparing and triceps-detaching approaches for primary elbow arthroplasty. The rate of postoperative triceps rupture was 15.2% in the triceps-detaching group but there was no rupture in the triceps-sparing group. 

Solarz et al [75] compared the triceps-detaching with the triceps-sparing approaches and they reported that functional strength and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were significantly higher in the triceps-sparing group. The arc of motion, visual analog scale, and MEPS were similar between the two groups.

Periprosthetic Fracture

The third most common cause of elbow arthroplasty failure is periprosthetic fracture and it can pose difficulty for revision [76]. Since the upper extremity has smaller bones with less bone stock, management of bone defects is very important. Inadequate bone stock is the usually encountered problem, especially in patients with osteoporosis. Cortical strut allograft augmentation is required for revision in patients with poor or weak bone stock. A study by Sanchez-Sotelo et al [77] has reported that periprosthetic humeral fractures associated with a loose humeral component can be effectively treated with strut allograft augmentation and revision elbow arthroplasty. 

Bushing Wear

Multimodal wear in total elbow replacements can lead to osteolysis, aseptic loosening, and prosthetic and periprosthetic fracture that would require revision surgery [68]. Polyethylene wear and damage, as well as metal on metal wear, contribute to the periprosthetic particulates, which is pathogenic in these processes. 

Lee et al [78] suggested that one of the reasons for a component stem fracture after elbow arthroplasty seems to be fatigue failure at or near the junction between an unsupported stem and a well-fixed stem. Osteolysis caused by bushing wear leads to the stem being unsupported.

Other Complications

Other serious complications after elbow arthroplasty include:

• Wound breakage especially around the olecranon. 

• Ulnar nerve lesions are a significant complication after elbow arthroplasty, with potentially debilitating consequences. 

Surgical approaches for elbow arthroplasty

There are many surgical approaches to the elbow, of which the posterior approach is the most common.  It provides excellent access to the elbow and it is the approach that is most commonly used for total elbow arthroplasty [79-82]. In the posterior approach, the triceps is either split or reflected or the olecranon is divided.

Osteotomy of the olecranon is particularly valuable in the treatment of comminuted distal humerus fractures involving the articular surface. It is, however, not suitable for total elbow arthroplasty because an intact ulna is required for the fixation of the distal component of the prosthesis.  Techniques in which the triceps is split or reflected can be used for total elbow arthroplasty, but they give a less satisfactory exposure of the distal humerus than can be achieved by an olecranon osteotomy. 

The majority of approaches to the elbow for elbow arthroplasty utilize a posterior midline skin incision with full-thickness flaps and early identification of the ulnar nerve. The nerve needs to be identified early and superficially decompressed [83]. Transposition is advocated when there is pre-existing nerve deficits or where the prosthesis affects the nerve's usual course [84]. The nerve should be left in its bed to maintain its blood supply. 

The approaches are broadly categorized into triceps-on and triceps-off. Triceps-on approaches maintain the triceps mechanism and its insertion on the ulna. Triceps off approaches involve some or all of the triceps being taken off its ulna insertion. The triceps-off group are subdivided into triceps turndown, triceps slitting, or triceps elevating. A triceps turndown involves cutting of the triceps tendon proximal to the ulna insertion. The triceps elevating approach elevates the triceps off the ulna subperiosteally. A triceps splitting approach divides the triceps tendon longitudinally along its length and through its insertion.

Most of the triceps splitting techniques are modifications of the midline triceps split with elevation of each half of the triceps off the posterior humerus and ulna [85]. 

The Shahane–Stanley posterior approach combines a split and reflection of the triceps [86]. After the triceps is split, 75% of the muscle is reflected laterally and 25% medially. The medial triceps is reflected to the medial side with dissection under the ulnar nerve but attachment to the olecranon is maintained. The lateral triceps is reflected sub-periostally off the olecranon along with the anconeus. Transosseous sutures through the olecranon are used to repair the triceps.

A midline triceps split with subperiosteal mobilization of the lateral triceps is done in the tricep split and snip. The medial portion is mobilized off the posterior humerus. If required a snip of the triceps tendon is made of the medial triceps portion 1 cm to 2 cm proximal to the ulna. At closure, a side-to-side repair, as well as an end-to-end repair is required [87].

The anconeus-triceps lateral flap approach [88] utilizes the Kocher interval on the lateral side between the anconeus and extensor carpi ulnaris, and a plane between the lateral triceps expansion and the true tendinous part of the triceps. The triangular flap is then elevated proximally off the ulna to allow exposure to the joint. The tendinous portion of the triceps on the medial side remains on the ulna with proximal elevation off the back of the humerus.

The triceps-on approach is also called the triceps preserving or triceps retaining approach. The triceps and triceps insertion is maintained in continuity with the olecranon. These can be divided into single and dual approaches. A single medial triceps-on approach involves releasing the ulnar nerve and retracting it anteriorly. The medial collateral ligament and capsule are excised along the ulna border of the humerus. Distally, the flexor carpi ulnaris is elevated from the ulna and proximally the triceps is elevated from the back of the humerus. This leaves the triceps intact and the elbow can be dislocated with pronation [89,90]. 

In the lateral extended Kocher approach a lateral incision is made and the triceps is elevated off the lateral ridge and distally the plane is between the anconeus and extensor carpi ulnaris [91].

The Alonso-Llames bilaterotricipital approach [92] was first described for supracondylar fractures in children but subsequently, it was modified for elbow arthroplasty. The triceps is elevated on each side off the intermuscular septum and posterior humerus. Distally two para-olecranon incisions are made. The ulnar nerve is mobilized with a cuff of triceps fascia and capsule to allow closure at the end of the procedure [93]. 

The elbow can be dislocated laterally and the ulna is maximally exposed for instrumentation by hyper-pronating the forearm. 

In patients with a stiff elbow, a medial capsulotomy and subperiosteal elevation of the origin of the radial collateral ligament is often needed to enable dislocation of the elbow by distraction and flexion of the joint. This provides a wide exposure of the articular surfaces. 

During closure, the intramuscular septum of the triceps is first repaired. 

Closure of the muscle envelope begins by suturing the detached edge of the anconeus to its insertion into the proximal ulna. The deep closure is completed by suturing the reflected triceps fascia to its cut edge. It is always important to isolate, decompress, and protect the ulnar nerve during elbow arthroplasty.

The incidence of ulna nerve paresis complicating elbow arthroplasty varies between 31%–65% [94,95]. 

Revision elbow arthroplasty

Types of elbow arthroplasty failure can be divided into 2 groups namely the infected and non-infected group, based on serologic markers, imaging, and

intraoperative histology [50,70,96,97]. Elbow arthroplasty failure due to infection is treated by a two-stage revision, where in the first stage the implants are removed and the infection treated. This is followed by reimplantation after the infection has been controlled [96,98,99,100]. 

The non-infected type is treated by a one-stage revision and addressing the mechanical problems at the implant-implant or the implant-bone interface [101,102,103,104,105,106,107]. 

During the single-stage revision surgery, if one of the components is stable, the type of implant that matches the original implant is chosen.

Single-Stage Revision Surgery for Non-Infectious Cases

After the joint has been exposed sharp subperiosteal release of the collateral ligaments from the medial and lateral epicondyles is carried out. The prosthesis components are meticulously removed avoiding further damage to the bones. As much of the cement as possible is removed from the medullary canal. Tightly adhered cement can be left behind if it does not interfere with the implantation of the revision stem. Bone loss is usually managed with either cement or by shortening of the humerus or ulna. If there are epicondyle fractures, Kirschner wires are used to temporarily fix the fragments before reimplanting the components. Cerclage wire is used for longitudinal fractures of the humerus or ulna. A longer component is preferred in all patients undergoing revision surgery [76,77,108].

Two-Stage Revision Surgery for Infectious Cases

The first stage of surgery for infected cases involves the removal of the prosthesis and all infected tissue including the synovial membrane. Samples of the infected tissue surrounding the implants and joint fluid are cultured. The bone canals are irrigated with chlorhexidine solution diluted with 0.9% sodium chloride. Antibiotic cement spacer (5 gm gentamicin, 1 gm vancomycin, and 1 gm ceftriaxone per 40 gm cement) is placed in the joint space. 

Based on sensitivity tests the patient is given intravenous antibiotics for more than 6 weeks until complete normalization of all serologic markers (including WBC, ESR, and CRP) has occurred [54,62,109]. 

The second stage of surgery centers on joint reconstruction with a new implant after the infection has been controlled. After removal of the antibiotic cement spacer, tissue samples are taken for follow-up sensitivity testing. 

Morrey et al [103] have proposed three specific reconstruction techniques using allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) to manage bone defects. 

• Type I reconstruction (intussusception type) involves intussusception of the APC into the host bone and is sometimes modified in a reverse fashion so that the upper portion of the host bone is inserted by using the lower portion of the femur shaft as the allograft when the host bone is too narrow for insertion of the allograft bone. 

• Type II reconstruction involves inserting the distal aspect of the stem into the host canal with a strut-like extension of the graft coadapted externally to the cortex while adapting a cortical strut graft.

• Type III reconstruction comprises side-to-side contact between the cortices of the APC and the host bone. Wiring is often added to enhance the contact area and promote stable fixation between the host bones and the APC.

Conclusions

Rheumatoid arthritis remains the most common indication for total elbow arthroplasty although the annual incidence of elbow arthroplasties performed for inflammatory arthritis is decreasing. The indications for elbow arthroplasty have expanded to include trauma-related problems such as  unreconstructable elbow fractures and posttraumatic osteoarthritis. The complication rates are high. Various efforts have been made in revision surgery, such as the development of devices with different designs and surgical techniques.

References

1. Dee R. Total replacement arthroplasty of the elbow for rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972;54(1):88-95.

2. Broberg MA, Morrey BF. Results of delayed excision of the radial head after fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68(5):669-74.

3. Giannicola G, Sacchetti FM, Antonietti G, Piccioli A, Postacchini R, Cinotti G. Radial head, radiocapitellar and total elbow arthroplasties: a review of recent literature. Injury. 2014;45(2):428-36.

4. Hackl M, Muller LP, Leschinger T, Wegmann K. Total elbow arthroplasty in traumatic and post-traumatic bone defects. Orthopade. 2017;46(12):990-1000.

5. Lami D, Chivot M, Caubere A, Galland A, Argenson JN. First-line management of distal humerus fracture by total elbow arthroplasty in geriatric traumatology: results in a 21-patient series at a minimum 2 years’ follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(6):891-7.

6. Mansat P, Bonnevialle N, Rongieres M, Bonnevialle P; Bone, Joint Trauma Study Group (GETRAUM). The role of total elbow arthroplasty in traumatology. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(6 Suppl): S293-8.

7. Pogliacomi F, Schiavi P, Defilippo M, et al. Total elbow arthroplasty following complex fractures of the distal humerus: results in patients over 65 years of age. Acta Biomed. 2016;87(2):148-55.

8. Pooley J, Salvador Carreno J. Total elbow joint replacement for fractures in the elderly: functional and radiological outcomes. Injury. 2015;46 Suppl 5:S37-42.

9. Rajaee SS, Lin CA, Moon CN. Primary total elbow arthroplasty for distal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a nationwide analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(11):1854-60.

10. Schoch BS, Werthel JD, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Morrey BF, Morrey M. Total elbow arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(8):1355-9.

11. Brinkman JM, de Vos MJ, Eygendaal D. Failure mechanisms in uncemented Kudo type 5 elbow prosthesis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 7 of 49 ulnar components revised because of loosening after 2-10 years. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(2):263-70.

12. Kim HJ, Kim JY, Kee YM, Rhee YG. Total elbow arthroplasty under unfavourable soft tissue conditions. Int Orthop. 2018;42(2):367-74.

13. Kim JM, Mudgal CS, Konopka JF, Jupiter JB. Complications of total elbow arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(6):328-39.

14. Klug A, Gramlich Y, Buckup J, Schweigkofler U, Hoffmann R, Schmidt-Horlohe K. Trends in total elbow arthroplasty: a nationwide analysis in Germany from 2005 to 2014. Int Orthop. 2018;42(4): 883-9.

15. Park SE, Kim JY, Cho SW, Rhee SK, Kwon SY. Complications and revision rate compared by type of total elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(8):1121-7.

16. Toulemonde J, Ancelin D, Azoulay V, Bonnevialle N, Rongieres M, Mansat P. Complications and revisions after semi-constrained total elbow arthroplasty: a mono-centre analysis of one hundred cases. Int Orthop. 2016;40(1):73-80.

17. Aldridge JM 3rd, Lightdale NR, Mallon WJ, Coonrad RW. Total elbow arthroplasty with the Coonrad/CoonradMorrey prosthesis: a 10- to 31-year survival analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(4):509-14.

18. Pham TT, Delclaux S, Huguet S, Wargny M, Bonnevialle N, Mansat P. Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 54 prostheses reviewed at 7 years' average follow-up (maximum, 16 years). J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(3):398-403.

19. Kiran M, Jariwala A, Wigderowitz C. Medium term outcomes of primary and revision Coonrad-Morrey total elbow replacement. Indian J Orthop. 2015;49(2):233-8.

20. Barthel PY, Mansat P, Sirveaux F, Dap F, Mole D, Dautel G. Is total elbow arthroplasty indicated in the treatment of traumatic sequelae? 19 Cases of Coonrad-Morrey(®) reviewed at a mean follow-up of 5.2 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(1):113-8.

21. Mansat P, Bonnevialle N, Rongieres M, Mansat M, Bonnevialle P. Experience with the Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty: 78 consecutive total elbow arthroplasties reviewed with an average 5 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1461-8.

22. de Vos MJ, Wagener ML, Hannink G, van der Pluijm M, Verdonschot N, Eygendaal D. Short-term clinical results of revision elbow arthroplasty using the Latitude total elbow arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2016;98(8):1086-92.

23. Wagener ML, de Vos MJ, Hannink G, van der Pluijm M, Verdonschot N, Eygendaal D. Mid-term clinical results of a modern convertible total elbow arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2015;97(5):681-8.

24. Welsink CL, Lambers KT, van Deurzen DF, Eygendaal D, van den Bekerom MP. Total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review. JBJS Rev. 2017;5(7):e4.

25. Prkic A, Welsink C, BertramThe, van den Bekerom MPJ, Eygendaal D. Why does total elbow arthroplasty fail today? A systematic review of recent literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017 Jun;137(6): 761-769. doi: 10.1007/s00402-017-2687-x. Epub 2017 Apr 9. PMID: 28391430.

26. Krukhaug Y, Hallan G, Dybvik E, Lie SA, Furnes ON. A survivorship study of 838 total elbow replacements: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994-2016. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(2):260-9.

27. Hildebrand KA, Patterson SD, Regan WD, MacDermid JC, King GJ. Functional outcome of semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(10):1379-86.

28. Mansat P, Bonnevialle N, Rongieres M, Mansat M, Bonnevialle P; French Society for Shoulder and Elbow SOFEC. Results with a minimum of 10 years follow-up of the Coonrad/Morrey total elbow arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(6 Suppl): S337-43.

29. Rangarajan R, Papandrea RF, Cil A. Distal humeral hemiarthroplasty versus total elbow arthroplasty for acute distal humeral fractures. Orthopedics. 2017;40(1):13-23.

30.  Lovy AJ, Keswani A, Koehler SM, Kim J, Hausman M. Short-term complications of distal humerus fractures in elderly patients: open reduction internal fixation versus total elbow arthroplasty. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2016;7(1):39-44.

31. Lapner M, King GJ. Elbow arthroplasty for distal humeral fractures. Instr Course Lect. 2014;63:15-26.

32.  Zhang D, Chen N. Total elbow arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2019;44(6):487-95.

33. Schoch B, Wong J, Abboud J, Lazarus M, Getz C, Ramsey M. Results of total elbow arthroplasty in patients less than 50 years old. J Hand Surg Am. 2017;42(10):797-802.

34. Barco R, Streubel PN, Morrey BF, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Total elbow arthroplasty for distal humeral fractures: a ten year minimum follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(18):1524-31. 

35. Rajaee SS, Lin CA, Moon CN. Primary total elbow arthroplasty for distal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a nationwide analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(11):1854-60.

36. Jenkins PJ, Watts AC, Norwood T, Duckworth AD, Rymaszewski LA, McEachan JE. Total elbow replacement: outcome of 1,146 arthroplasties from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(2):119-23.

37. Fevang BT, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O. Results after 562 total elbow replacements: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):449-56.

38. Amirfeyz R, Blewitt N. Mid-term outcome of GSB-III total elbow arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and patients with post-traumatic arthritis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129(11): 1505-10.

39. Giannicola G, Scacchi M, Polimanti D, Cinotti G. Discovery elbow system: 2- to 5-year results in distal humerus fractures and posttraumatic conditions: a prospective study on 24 patients. J Hand Surg Am. 2014;39(9):1746-56.

40. Lenich A, Imhoff AB, Siebenlist S. Post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the elbow joint: endoprosthetic options in young patients. Orthopade. 2016;45(10):844-52.

41. Celli A, Morrey BF. Total elbow arthroplasty in patients forty years of age or less. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1414-8.

42. Park JG, Cho NS, Song JH, Lee DS, Rhee YG. Clinical outcomes of semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty in patients who were forty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(21): 1781-91.

43. Kwak JM, Kholinne E, Sun Y, Lim S, Koh KH, Jeon IH. Clinical outcome of osteocapsular arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow: comparison of arthroscopic and open procedure. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(4):1083-9.

44. Schoch BS, Werthel JD, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Morrey BF, Morrey M. Total elbow arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(8):1355-9.

45. Ferlic DC, Clayton ML. Salvage of failed total elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(4):290–297.

46. Voloshin I, Schippert DW, Kakar S, Kaye EK, Morrey BF. Complications of total elbow replacement: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):158–168.

47. Gschwend N, Simmen BR, Matejovsky Z. Late complications in elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(2 Pt 1):86–96.

48. Plaschke HC, Thillemann TM, Brorson S, Olsen BS. Outcome after total elbow arthroplasty: a retrospective study of 167 procedures performed from 1981 to 2008. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(12): 1982–1990.

49. Pham TT, Delclaux S, Huguet S, Wargny M, Bonnevialle N, Mansat P. Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 54 prostheses reviewed at 7 years’ average follow-up (maximum, 16 years). J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(3): 398–403.

50. Kwak JM, Kholinne E, Sun Y, Kim MS, Koh KH, Jeon IH. Clinical results of revision total elbow arthroplasty: comparison of infected and non-infected total elbow arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2019;43(6):1421-7.

51. Parvizi J, Shohat N, Gehrke T. Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: new guidelines. Bone Joint J. 2017;99(4Supple B):3-10.

52. Ting NT, Della Valle CJ. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection-an algorithm-based approach. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(7): 2047-50.

53. Somerson JS, Morrey ME, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Morrey BF. Diagnosis and management of periprosthetic elbow infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(23):1962-71.

54. Henderson RA, Austin MS. Management of periprosthetic joint infection: the more we learn, the less we know. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(7): 2056-9.

55. Streubel PN, Simone JP, Morrey BF, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Morrey ME. Infection in total elbow arthroplasty with stable components: outcomes of a staged surgical protocol with retention of the components. Bone Joint J. 2016;98(7):976-83.

56. Kok TW, Agrawal N, Sathappan SS, Chen WK. Risk factors for early implant-related surgical site infection. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2016;24(1):72-6.

57. Spormann C, Achermann Y, Simmen BR, et al. Treatment strategies for periprosthetic infections after primary elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(8):992-1000.

58. Farnsworth CW, Schott EM, Benvie AM, et al. Obesity/type 2 diabetes increases inflammation, periosteal reactive bone formation, and osteolysis during Staphylococcus aureus implant-associated bone infection. J Orthop Res.2018;36(6):1614-23.

59. Pope D, Scaife SL, Tzeng TH, Vasdev S, Saleh KJ. Impact of diabetes on early postoperative outcomes after total elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(3):348-52.

60. Toor AS, Jiang JJ, Shi LL, Koh JL. Comparison of perioperative complications after total elbow arthroplasty in patients with and without diabetes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(11):1599-606.

61. Mraovic B, Suh D, Jacovides C, Parvizi J. Perioperative hyperglycemia and postoperative infection after lower limb arthroplasty. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(2):412-8.

62. Yoon HK, Cho SH, Lee DY, et al. A review of the literature on culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection: epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2017;29(3):155-64.

63. Peach CA, Nicoletti S, Lawrence TM, Stanley D. Two-stage revision for the treatment of the infected total elbow arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(12):1681-6.

64. Rudge WB, Eseonu K, Brown M, et al. The management of infected elbow arthroplasty by two-stage revision. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(5):879-86.

65. Wagner ER, Ransom JE, Kremers HM, Morrey M, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Comparison of the hospital costs for two stage reimplantation for deep infection, single-stage revision and primary total elbow arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow. 2017;9(4):279-84.

66. Zmistowski B, Pourjafari A, Padegimas EM, et al. Treatment of periprosthetic joint infection of the elbow: 15-year experience at a single institution. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(9):1636-41.

67. Rhee YG, Cho NS, Parke CS. Impaction grafting in revision total elbow arthroplasty due to aseptic loosening and bone loss. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(11):e741-7.

68. Goldberg SH, Urban RM, Jacobs JJ, King GJ, O'Driscoll SW, Cohen MS. Modes of wear after semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):609-19.

69. Zhang D, Chen N. Total elbow arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2019;44(6):487-95.

70. Kaufmann RA, D'Auria JL, Schneppendahl J. Total elbow arthroplasty: elbow biomechanics and failure. J Hand Surg Am. 2019;44(8):687-92. 

71. King GJ, Adams RA, Morrey BF. Total elbow arthroplasty: revision with use of a non-custom semiconstrained prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(3):394-400.

72. Celli A, Arash A, Adams RA, Morrey BF. Triceps insufficiency following total elbow arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9): 1957-64.

73. Voloshin I, Schippert DW, Kakar S, Kaye EK, Morrey BF. Complications of total elbow replacement: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):158-68.

74. Dachs RP, Fleming MA, Chivers DA, et al. Total elbow arthroplasty: outcomes after triceps-detaching and triceps sparing approaches. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(3):339-47.

75. Solarz MK, Patel MK, Struk AM, et al. A clinical comparison of triceps-sparing and triceps-detaching approaches for revision total elbow arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2019 Jun 18 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.05.002.

76. Geurts EJ, Viveen J, van Riet RP, Kodde IF, Eygendaal D. Outcomes after revision total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(2):381-6.

77. Sanchez-Sotelo J, O’Driscoll S, Morrey BF. Periprosthetic humeral fractures after total elbow arthroplasty: treatment with implant revision and strut allograft augmentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(9): 1642-50.

78. Lee H, Vaichinger AM, O’Driscoll SW. Component fracture after total elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(8):1449-56.

79. MacAusland  WR.  Ankylosis of the elbow,  with report of four cases treated by arthroplasty. J  Am  Med  Assoc  1915;64:312-8.2. 

80. Morrey BF,  Bryan RS,  Dobbyns JH,  Linscheid  RL.  Total elbow arthroplasty:  a  five-year experience at the Mayo clinic.  J Bone Joint Surg  [Am]  1981;63-A:1050-63.3. 

81. Steiger JU, Gschwend N, Bell S.  GSB  elbow arthroplasty:  a  new concept and six years’  experience.  In:  Kashiwagi D, ed. Elbow joint.Amsterdam:  Elsevier  Science  Publishers  BV  (Biomedical  Division),1985:285-94.4.

82. Wolfe SW, Ranawat CS. The osteoanconeus flap: an approach for total elbow arthroplasty.  J Bone Joint Surg [Am]  1990;72-A: 684-8.

83. Morrey BF, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Approaches for elbow arthroplasty: how to handle the triceps. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20: S90–S96.

84. Voloshin I, Schippert DW, Kakar S, Kaye EK, Morrey BF. Complications of total elbow replacement: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg Am 2011; 20: 158–168.

85. Campbell W. Campbells operative orthopaedics 1971; Volume 1 5th edition St Louis, MO: Mosby.

86. Shahane SA, Stanley D. A posterior approach to the elbow joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81: 1020–1022.

87. Poon PC, Foliaki S, Young SW, Eisenhauer D. Triceps split and snip approach to the elbow: surgical technique and biomechanical evaluation. ANZ J Surg 2013; 83: 774–778.

88. Celli A. The anconeus-triceps lateral flap approach: new surgical exposure for total elbow arthroplasty. Tech Shoulder Elb Surg 2015; 16: 19–28.

89. Oizumi N, Suenaga N, Yoshioka C, Yamane S. Triceps-sparing ulnar approach for total elbow arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2015; 97B: 1096–1101. 

90. Prokopis PM, Weiland AJ. The triceps-preserving approach for semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am 2008; 17: 454–458.

91. Rydholm U, Ljung P. Surface replacement of the rheumatoid elbow through a lateral approach. Tech Orthop 2003; 18: 258–266.

92. Alonso-Llames M. Bilaterotricipital approach to the elbow. Its application in the osteosynthesis of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children. Acta Orthop Scand 1972; 43: 479–490.

93. Dachs RP, Fleming MA, Chivers DA, et al. Total elbow arthroplasty: outcomes after triceps-detaching and triceps-sparing approaches. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am 2015; 24: 339–347.

94. Hodgson SP, Parkinson RW, Noble J. Capitellocondylar total elbow replacement for rheumatoid arthritis. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1991;36(2):133–135.

95. Ruth JT, Wilde AH. Capitellocondylar total elbow replacement. A long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(1):95–100.

96. Ramirez MA, Cheung EV, Murthi AM. Revision total elbow arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25(8):e166-74.

97. Morrey BF, Bryan RS. Revision total elbow arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(4):523-32.

98. Henderson RA, Austin MS. Management of periprosthetic joint infection: the more we learn, the less we know. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(7):2056-9.

99. Streubel PN, Simone JP, Morrey BF, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Morrey ME. Infection in total elbow arthroplasty with stable components: outcomes of a staged surgical protocol with retention of the components. Bone Joint J. 2016;98(7):976-83.

100. Peach CA, Nicoletti S, Lawrence TM, Stanley D. Two-stage revision for the treatment of the infected total elbow arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(12):1681-6. 

101. Geurts EJ, Viveen J, van Riet RP, Kodde IF, Eygendaal D. Outcomes after revision total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(2):381-6.

102. Wagner ER, Ransom JE, Kremers HM, Morrey M, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Comparison of the hospital costs for twostage reimplantation for deep infection, single-stage revision and primary total elbow arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow. 2017;9(4):279-84.

103. Morrey ME, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Abdel MP, Morrey BF. Allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction for massive bone loss including catastrophic failure in total elbow arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(12):1117-24.

104. Sanchez-Sotelo J, O’Driscoll S, Morrey BF. Periprosthetic humeral fractures after total elbow arthroplasty: treatment with implant revision and strut allograft augmentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(9): 1642-50.

105. Cheung EV, O’Driscoll SW. Total elbow prosthesis loosening caused by ulnar component pistoning. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(6):1269-74.

106. Renfree KJ, Dell PC, Kozin SH, Wright TW. Total elbow arthroplasty with massive composite allografts. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(3):313-21.

107. O’Driscoll SW, King GJ. Treatment of instability after total elbow arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2001;32(4):679-95.

108. Sundfeldt M, Carlsson LV, Johansson CB, Thomsen P, Gretzer C. Aseptic loosening, not only a question of wear: a review of different theories. Acta Orthop. 2006;77(2):177-97.

109. Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, et al. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(1):e1-25.