Complications of antibiotic cement spacers used for elbow infections.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic cement spacers have been widely used in the treatment of joint infections. There are no commercially available antibiotic spacers for the elbow. Instead, they are typically fashioned by the surgeon at the time of surgery using cement alone or a combination of cement with sutures, Steinmann pins, external fixator components, or elbow arthroplasty components. There is no consensus regarding the ideal elbow antibiotic spacer and no previous studies have examined the complications associated with these handmade implants in relation to their unique structural design. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 55 patients who had 78 static antibiotic cement spacers implanted between January 1998 and February 2021 as part of a 2-stage treatment plan for infection of an elbow arthroplasty, other elbow surgery, or primary elbow infection. Several antibiotic spacer structures were used during the study period. For analysis purposes, the spacers were classified into linked and unlinked spacers based on whether there was a linking mechanism between the humerus and the ulna. Complications related to these spacers that occurred either during the implantation, between implantation and removal, or during removal were recorded and analyzed from chart review and follow-up x rays. Reoperations due to spacer-related complications were also recorded. RESULTS: Among the 55 patients (78 spacers), there were 23 complications, including 17 minor and 6 major complications. The most common complication of unlinked spacers (intramedullary [IM] dowels, beads and cap spacer) was spacer displacement. Other complications included IM dowel fracture and difficulty locating beads during spacer removal. The major complications of linked cement spacers included two periprosthetic humerus fractures after internal external fixator cement spacers and re-operation due to breakage and displacement of one bushing cement spacer. The major complications of unlinked cement spacers included two reoperations due to IM dowel displacement and one reoperation due to displacement of beads. Among patients who had removal of all components and those with native joints, there was no statistically significant difference between internal external fixator cement spacers and unlinked cement spacers in minor complication rates (30% vs. 16%, P = .16), major complication rates (7% vs. 8%, P = .85) and reoperation rates (0% vs. 8%, P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Static handmade antibiotic elbow spacers have unique complications related to their structural designs. The most common complication of linked and nonlinked cement spacers were failure of the linking mechanism and displacement, respectively. Surgeons should keep in mind the possible complications of different structures of cement spacers when choosing 1 antibiotic spacer structure over another.

Trans-ulnar fracture dislocations of the elbow: a systematic review and clarification of classification systems.

BACKGROUND: Complex elbow dislocations in which the dorsal cortex of the ulna is fractured can be difficult to classify and therefore treat. These have variably been described as either Monteggia variant injuries or trans-olecranon fracture dislocations. Additionally, O'Driscoll et al classified coronoid fractures that exit the dorsal cortex of the ulna as "basal coronoid, subtype 2" fractures. The Mayo classification of trans-ulnar fracture dislocations categorizes these injuries in 3 types according to what the coronoid remains attached to: trans-olecranon fracture dislocations, Monteggia variant fracture dislocations, and trans-ulnar basal coronoid fracture dislocations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of these injury patterns as reported in the literature. Our hypothesis was that trans-ulnar basal coronoid fracture dislocations would have a worse prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify studies with trans-ulnar fracture dislocations that had documentation of associated coronoid injuries. A literature search identified 16 qualifying studies with 296 fractures. Elbows presenting with basal subtype 2 or Regan/Morrey III coronoid fractures and Jupiter IIA and IID injuries were classified as trans-ulnar basal coronoid fractures. Patients with trans-olecranon or Monteggia fractures were classified as such if the coronoid was not fractured or an associated coronoid fracture had been classified as O'Driscoll tip, anteromedial facet, basal subtype I, or Regan Morrey I/II. RESULTS: The 296 fractures reviewed were classified as trans-olecranon in 44 elbows, Monteggia variant in 82 elbows, and trans-ulnar basal coronoid fracture dislocations in 170 elbows. Higher rates of complications and reoperations were reported for trans-ulnar basal coronoid injuries (40%, 25%) compared to trans-olecranon (11%, 18%) and Monteggia variant injuries (25%, 13%). The mean flexion-extension arc for basal coronoid fractures was 106° compared to 117° for Monteggia (P < .01) and 121° for trans-olecranon injuries (P = .02). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 84 points for trans-ulnar basal coronoid, 91 for Monteggia (P < .01), and 93 for trans-olecranon fracture dislocations (P < .05). Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were 22 and 80 for trans-ulnar basal coronoid, respectively, compared to 23 and 89 for trans-olecranon fractures. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons was not available for any Monteggia injuries, but the mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand was 13. DISCUSSION: Trans-ulnar basal coronoid fracture dislocations are associated with inferior patient reported outcome measures, decreased range of motion, and increased complication rates compared to trans-olecranon or Monteggia variant fracture dislocations. Further research is needed to determine the most appropriate treatment for this difficult injury pattern.