Background: The aim of this study was to present the long-term survivorship (20 years) of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) for a relatively large population and to compare different prosthesis brands and patient subgroups.
Methods: Between 1994 and 2017, a total of 838 primary TEAs were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk differences were examined using Cox regression analyses and exact Cox regression for rare events. We compared the survivorship of the 8 most frequently used implant brands, the different diagnoses leading to TEA, and the influence of the fixation technique.
Results: The overall 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year survival rates for all elbow arthroplasties were 92%, 81%, 71%, and 61%, respectively. Risk factors for revision were a diagnosis of sequelae after trauma and cementless fixation of the ulna component. There were some differences between the implant brands. The Norway prostheses had higher survival compared with the Kudo after 15 years of follow-up (78% and 66%, respectively; P < .001). Among the implants with shorter follow-up, the IBP and NES had inferior survivorship compared with the Norway. The frequently used Discovery had promising survivorship up to 5 years. The most frequent reason for revision surgery was aseptic loosening, followed by defective polyethylene, infection, and dislocation. The revision causes were to some degree implant specific.
Conclusion: Fairly good results in terms of prosthesis survival were obtained with TEA, although results were poorer than for knee and hip arthroplasties.
Keywords: Elbow arthroplasty; acute elbow fracture; fixation method; inflammatory arthritis; national arthroplasty register; osteoarthritis; prosthesis survival.
Copyright © 2017 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.