Hemiarthroplasty Or Total Elbow Arthroplasty in the Elderly.

Overview

A feasibility study to assess the practicality, and obtain preliminary data to inform, a definitive Randomise Control Trial (RCT) in patients over the age of 65 diagnosed with un-reconstructible distal humeral fractures, to determine if there are differences in functional outcomes between those undergoing a hemiarthroplasty and a total elbow arthroplasty? Over an 18 month recruitment period the investigators will assess recruitment rates and participants willingness to be randomised to one of two routine clinical treatments. During a 1 year routine clinical follow up period (at 3 time points), routinely collected orthopaedic outcome data will be recorded and differences between groups explored.

Comminuted intra-articular distal humerus fractures (DHF) in the elderly population (over 65 years) have long been a treatment dilemma. Fixation of the fracture often results in development of arthritis and is associated with severe arthrofibrosis (stiffness) and pain. As a consequence, it has become standard practice that elderly patients with these injuries are treated with either elbow hemiarthroplasty (HA) or total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Both allow immediate mobilisation of the affected arm, with good long term pain and range of motion outcomes reported for both implants in a variety of articles. However each implant has its own advantages and disadvantages. Elbow HA allows full lifting and loading activities to continue in the operated elbow. However, the concern is that the metal articulation on native cartilage may result in wear and pain associated with this resulting in the need for conversion to a total elbow prosthesis. As this is revision surgery it carries additional risks over first time surgery. Secondly the collateral ligaments have to be reattached and this risks instability following the surgery if this fails. Patients with TEA are required to avoid lifting and loading activities with the affected arm from the point of surgery and this is ongoing. Such activity can result in failure of the implant with bushing wear, or early progression to aseptic loosening. However, with complete resection of cartilage there is no concern of progressive ulna wear or pain and some literature has suggested a better range of motion due to the semi-constrained nature of the implant meaning condyle retention is not required. To date no study has directly compared the two arthroplasty options for DHF's in elderly patients. Both implants are currently offered in the Royal Devon and Exeter, National Health Service Foundation Trust (RD\&E NHS FT), while other trusts locally are known to offer only one approach. This reflect the uncertainty around which treatment may be better: current provision options are based on the operating surgeon's skills and clinical experience. To address this state of clinical and personal equipoise will require a large, multi-centred, randomised controlled trial of HA vs TEA, for patients over the age of 65 diagnosed with un-reconstructible DHF's. Before this can be considered the investigators need to assess the feasibility of such a study, and obtain preliminary data to inform its development.