4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Discovery Elbow System arthroplasty polyethylene bearing exchange: outcomes and experience

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Discovery Elbow System (DES) utilizes a polyethylene bearing within the ulnar component. An exchange bearing requires preoperative freezing and implantation within 2 minutes of freezer removal to allow insertion. We report our outcomes and experience using this technique.

          Methods

          This was an analysis of a two-surgeon consecutive series of DES bearing exchange. Inclusion criteria included patients in which exchange was attempted with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Clinical and radiographic review was performed 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 years postoperative. Outcome measures included range of movement, Oxford Elbow Score (OES), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), complications and requirement for revision surgery.

          Results

          Eleven DESs in 10 patients were included. Indications were bearing wear encountered during humeral component revision (n=5); bearing failure (n=4); and infection treated with debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR; n=2). Bearing exchange was conducted on the first attempt in 10 cases. One case required a second attempt. One patient developed infection postoperatively managed with two-stage revision. Mean follow-up of the bearing exchange DES was 3 years. No further surgery was required, with no infection recurrence in DAIR cases. Mean elbow flexion-extension and pronosupination arcs were 107° (±22°) and 140° (±26°). Mean OES was 36/48 (±12) and MEPS was 83/100 (±19).

          Conclusions

          Our results support the use of DES bearing exchange in cases of bearing wear with well-fixed stems or acute infection. This series provides surgeons managing DES arthroplasty with management principles, successful and reproducible surgical techniques and expected clinical outcomes in performing DES polyethylene bearing exchange.

          Level of evidence

          IV.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Biological response to prosthetic debris.

          Joint arthroplasty had revolutionized the outcome of orthopaedic surgery. Extensive and collaborative work of many innovator surgeons had led to the development of durable bearing surfaces, yet no single material is considered absolutely perfect. Generation of wear debris from any part of the prosthesis is unavoidable. Implant loosening secondary to osteolysis is the most common mode of failure of arthroplasty. Osteolysis is the resultant of complex contribution of the generated wear debris and the mechanical instability of the prosthetic components. Roughly speaking, all orthopedic biomaterials may induce a universal biologic host response to generated wear débris with little specific characteristics for each material; but some debris has been shown to be more cytotoxic than others. Prosthetic wear debris induces an extensive biological cascade of adverse cellular responses, where macrophages are the main cellular type involved in this hostile inflammatory process. Macrophages cause osteolysis indirectly by releasing numerous chemotactic inflammatory mediators, and directly by resorbing bone with their membrane microstructures. The bio-reactivity of wear particles depends on two major elements: particle characteristics (size, concentration and composition) and host characteristics. While any particle type may enhance hostile cellular reaction, cytological examination demonstrated that more than 70% of the debris burden is constituted of polyethylene particles. Comprehensive understanding of the intricate process of osteolysis is of utmost importance for future development of therapeutic modalities that may delay or prevent the disease progression.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Late complications in elbow arthroplasty.

            The world literature (1986 to 92) reports an amazingly high complication rate of elbow arthroplasty, amounting to 43%. Accordingly, we also find a high revision rate (18% on average) and a considerable rate (15%) of permanent complications. These figures do not correspond to our own experience with the GSB III (Gschwend/Scheier/Bähler) elbow prosthesis, a sloppy hinge with flanges on the lower and anterior part of the distal humerus. Our respective figures of complications are two to four times lower for rheumatoid elbows. When complications are discussed, a clear distinction of the type of prosthesis is mandatory, because linked or nonlinked and nonconstrained or semiconstrained prostheses have specific complications. The following complications are discussed separately: loosening (radiologic and clinical), ulnar neuropathy, infection, dislocation and subluxation, uncoupling, intraoperative bone fractures, and failure of the implant. The possible causes are analyzed, and means to avoid or treat these complications are discussed. We conclude that even in the long term ( > 10 years), results obtained with elbow arthroplasty are approaching those of hip and knee arthroplasty.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Infection after total elbow arthroplasty.

              The purpose of this study was to review our experience with the treatment of twenty-five infections (in twenty-five patients) after total elbow arthroplasty and to examine indications for salvage of the prosthesis compared with those for resection arthroplasty. The patients were divided into three groups on the basis of treatment. Group I comprised fourteen patients who were managed with multiple, extensive irrigation and debridement procedures with retention of the original components. The primary indication for retention of the prosthesis was evidence that it was well fixed as determined both radiographically and intraoperatively. Group II comprised six patients who had removal of the prosthesis and debridement followed by immediate or staged reimplantation. Group III comprised five patients who were managed with resection arthroplasty. The infection was successfully eradicated in seven of the fourteen elbows that had salvage of the prosthesis with irrigation and debridement. The results were strongly dependent on the causative organism; attempts at debridement failed in the four elbows that were infected with Staphylococcus epidermidis compared with three of the ten that were infected with another organism. Four of the six patients in Group II had successful reimplantation of a prosthesis; in three, the infection had been caused by an organism other than Staphylococcus epidermidis. Only one of the three patients who had a Staphylococcus epidermidis infection had a successful reimplantation. None of the five patients who had a resection arthroplasty had signs of infection at the latest follow-up examination. We concluded that salvage of the prosthesis with extensive irrigation and debridement in the presence of an infection about the elbow can be reasonably successful if the infecting organism is not Staphylococcus epidermidis and if the components are well fixed. When removal of the components is warranted, staged reimplantation can also be highly successful when the infecting organism is not Staphylococcus epidermidis. However, the repeated operations necessary to retain a prosthesis and the high rates of complications seen with this approach--and the relatively good rates of satisfaction obtained with resection arthroplasty--suggest that resection arthroplasty remains the procedure of choice in medically frail patients or in patients for whom function of the elbow is less of a concern.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Shoulder Elb
                Clin Shoulder Elb
                CISE
                Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
                Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society
                2383-8337
                2288-8721
                March 2024
                26 January 2024
                : 27
                : 1
                : 18-25
                Affiliations
                Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Daniel L J Morris Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Rd, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK Tel: +44-77-2882-6479, Email: daniel.morris1@ 123456nhs.net
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8883-3212
                Article
                cise-2023-00668
                10.5397/cise.2023.00668
                10938009
                38303594
                3b55c05b-c118-4324-86c8-1fd63ca8518c
                © 2024 Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 24 July 2023
                : 19 September 2023
                : 25 September 2023
                Categories
                Original Article

                arthroplasty,replacement,elbow,elbow prosthesis,elbow joint,polyethylene

                Comments

                Comment on this article