Does long-term surveillance of primary linked total elbow arthroplasty identify failing implants requiring revision?

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Shoulder and Elbow Pub Date : 2024-12-10 DOI:10.1177/17585732241301356
Daniel Leslie James Morris, Avneet Minhas, Katherine Walstow, Lisa Pitt, Marie Morgan, Tim Cresswell, Marius P Espag, David I Clark, Amol A Tambe
{"title":"Does long-term surveillance of primary linked total elbow arthroplasty identify failing implants requiring revision?","authors":"Daniel Leslie James Morris, Avneet Minhas, Katherine Walstow, Lisa Pitt, Marie Morgan, Tim Cresswell, Marius P Espag, David I Clark, Amol A Tambe","doi":"10.1177/17585732241301356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Scoping review has identified a lack of evidence guiding long-term follow-up of elbow arthroplasty. We report the effectiveness of primary linked total elbow arthroplasty surveillance in identifying failing implants requiring revision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective database recording consecutive primary linked total elbow arthroplasty and subsequent surveillance in an elbow unit was analysed. Arthroplasties performed between 01.10.2013 and 31.07.2022 were included, with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Surveillance involves specialist physiotherapist review 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 years postoperatively. Patient-initiated review could occur between time points. Outcome measures include a number of surveillance reviews offered and attended; and the proportion that identified a failing implant requiring revision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-seven primary linked total elbow arthroplasties with minimum 1-year follow-up were performed (76 Discovery, 14 Nexel, 7 Coonrad/Morrey). Sixteen patients died prior to 31.07.2023, and three implants required revision <1 year postoperatively. 290 of 328 offered surveillance appointments were attended (88.4%). Five implants required revision ≥1 year post-operatively, with revision requirements identified by surveillance in all cases. Three failures occurred at 5 years postoperatively, and two failures occurred at 8 years postoperatively. Overall, 1.7% attended surveillance appointments identified a failing implant requiring revision.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This is the first series reporting the effectiveness of primary linked total elbow arthroplasty surveillance in identifying implants requiring revision.</p>","PeriodicalId":36705,"journal":{"name":"Shoulder and Elbow","volume":" ","pages":"17585732241301356"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11629365/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732241301356","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Scoping review has identified a lack of evidence guiding long-term follow-up of elbow arthroplasty. We report the effectiveness of primary linked total elbow arthroplasty surveillance in identifying failing implants requiring revision.

Methods: A prospective database recording consecutive primary linked total elbow arthroplasty and subsequent surveillance in an elbow unit was analysed. Arthroplasties performed between 01.10.2013 and 31.07.2022 were included, with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Surveillance involves specialist physiotherapist review 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 years postoperatively. Patient-initiated review could occur between time points. Outcome measures include a number of surveillance reviews offered and attended; and the proportion that identified a failing implant requiring revision.

Results: Ninety-seven primary linked total elbow arthroplasties with minimum 1-year follow-up were performed (76 Discovery, 14 Nexel, 7 Coonrad/Morrey). Sixteen patients died prior to 31.07.2023, and three implants required revision <1 year postoperatively. 290 of 328 offered surveillance appointments were attended (88.4%). Five implants required revision ≥1 year post-operatively, with revision requirements identified by surveillance in all cases. Three failures occurred at 5 years postoperatively, and two failures occurred at 8 years postoperatively. Overall, 1.7% attended surveillance appointments identified a failing implant requiring revision.

Discussion: This is the first series reporting the effectiveness of primary linked total elbow arthroplasty surveillance in identifying implants requiring revision.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
初次联合全肘关节置换术的长期监测能否确定需要翻修的失败植入物?
背景:范围回顾发现缺乏指导肘关节置换术长期随访的证据。我们报道原发性全肘关节置换术监测在识别需要翻修的失败植入物方面的有效性。方法:一个前瞻性数据库记录了连续的原发性全肘关节置换术和随后的肘部监测。纳入2013年10月1日至2022年7月31日期间进行的关节置换术,至少随访1年。监测包括术后1、2、3、5、8和10年的专科物理治疗师复查。患者发起的复查可以在两个时间点之间进行。成果措施包括提供和参加的若干监督审查;以及确定需要修复的失败植入物的比例。结果:97例进行了至少1年随访的原发性全肘关节置换术(76例Discovery, 14例Nexel, 7例conrad /Morrey)。2023年7月31日前,16例患者死亡,3例植入物需要翻修。讨论:这是第一个系列报道原发性全肘关节置换术监测在识别需要翻修的植入物方面的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Shoulder and Elbow
Shoulder and Elbow Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊最新文献
Epidemiology of acromioclavicular joint separations presenting to emergency departments in the United States between 2004 and 2023. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with bioinductive patch achieves equivalent patient-reported outcomes and retear rate at 1 year. Patterns of management for post-traumatic elbow stiffness: A comparative study of open and arthroscopic approaches. Stress shielding influences shoulder function after reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a short stem at minimum 2 years follow-up and can be predicted using a preoperative planning software: A retrospective cohort study. Response to the Letter-to-the-Editor by Dr H Duansuperwong and Prof. V Wiwanitkit.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1