Long-term outcome of elbow resurfacing

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to review the long term results the Kudo and instrumented Bone Preserving elbow prostheses. The instrumented Bone Preserving prosthesis is the successor of the Kudo prosthesis, and both of these are nonconstrained elbow resurfacing prostheses.MethodsFifty-five nonconstrained elbow prosthesis were implanted in 51 patients. Patients were evaluated with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand score. Revision or the necessity of revision was regarded as failure of the prosthesis.ResultsTwenty-one prostheses (of which 3 instrumented Bone Preserving prostheses) were revised or needed revision, yielding a revision rate of 15.1% after 5 years and 36.5% after 10. The major reasons for revision were loosening in 10 cases and instability in 5. Eleven of the nonrevised patients died of unrelated causes, having little or no subjective problems until the time of death. There was no statistical difference between Kudo and instrument Bone Preserving implant survival. Most nonrevised patients were satisfied, according to the Visual Analog Scale for satisfaction. The median MEPS indicated fair to good results.ConclusionWhen comparing our results to those of other elbow prosthesis we must conclude that our revision rate is high, however, the outcome of the nonrevised patients is good. This study shows that the results of the Kudo prosthesis, which have been reported twice before by our department, have clearly deteriorated after an average follow-up of 174 months (the last study had an average follow-up of 58 months).