Revision Total Elbow Arthroplasty with the Semiconstrained Coonrad/Morrey Prosthesis: Follow-up to 21 Years

Background:

Revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) has increased, especially in young patients with high functional expectations. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of revision TEA with a single semiconstrained prosthesis.

Methods:

Thirty-four revision TEAs were performed with a Coonrad/Morrey prosthesis in 32 patients; 2 patients had bilateral procedures. The mean patient age was 61 years (range, 22 to 76 years), and the revision TEA was performed at a mean time of 7.8 years (range, 1.6 to 21 years) after the primary TEA. Etiologies for revisions were humeral and ulnar aseptic loosening (n = 14), ulnar aseptic loosening (n = 8), humeral aseptic loosening (n = 6), septic arthritis (n = 4), and unstable unlinked prostheses (n = 2). Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed with systematic preoperative infection workup and quantification of bone loss. The mean follow-up was 11.4 years (range, 2 to 21 years).

Results:

The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) at the last follow-up was excellent in 6 cases, good in 18 cases, fair in 8 cases, and poor in 2 cases, with a mean improvement (and standard deviation) between the preoperative values at 42.4 ± 16.1 points and the postoperative values at 81.8 ± 12 points (p < 0.001). The mean pain scores improved significantly from 6.7 ± 1.3 points preoperatively to 1.4 ± 1.4 points postoperatively (p < 0.001). The flexion-extension arc increased significantly (p = 0.02) from 74° ± 27° preoperatively to 100° ± 31° postoperatively. The total number of complications was 29 in 19 revision TEAs (56%). Twenty of the 29 complications simply required monitoring without surgical intervention. Six repeat surgical procedures were required, and 3 implant revisions (9%) were performed.

Conclusions:

Revision TEA with a semiconstrained prosthesis can provide good clinical results that can be maintained during follow-up. The rate of complications is high. Proper evaluation of the risk-benefit ratio is essential for each revision TEA and should be discussed with the patient.

Level of Evidence:

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.