Use and outcome of 1,220 primary total elbow arthroplasties from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Replacement Registry 2008–2018

Jetske Viveen, Michel P.J. van den Bekerom, Job N. Doornberg, Alesha Hatton, Richard Page, Koen L.M. Koenraadt, Christopher Wilson, Gregory I. Bain, Ruurd L. Jaarsma, Denise Eygendaal

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)


Background and purpose — The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) was analyzed to determine trends in use of primary total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), the types of prostheses used, primary diagnoses, reasons for and types of revision, and whether the primary diagnosis or prosthesis design influenced the revision rate. Patients and methods — During 2008–2018, 1,220 primary TEA procedures were reported of which 140 TEAs were revised. Kaplan–Meier estimates of survivorship were used to describe the time to first revision and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to compare revision rates. Results — The annual number of TEAs performed remained constant. The 3 most common diagnoses for primary TEA were fracture/dislocation (trauma) (36%), osteoarthritis (OA) (34%), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (26%). The cumulative percentage revision for all TEAs undertaken for any reason was 10%, 15%, and 19% at 3, 6, and 9 years. TEAs undertaken for OA had a higher revision rate compared with TEAs for trauma (HR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–3.0) and RA (HR = 2.0, CI 1.3–3.1). The Coonrad-Morrey (50%), Latitude (30%), Nexel (10%), and Discovery (9%) were the most used prosthesis designs. There was no difference in revision rates when these 4 designs were compared. The most common reasons for revision were infection (35%) and aseptic loosening (34%). Interpretation — The indications for primary and revision TEA in Australia are similar to those reported for other registries. Revision for trauma is lower than previously reported.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)511-516
Number of pages6
JournalActa orthopaedica
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 2 Nov 2019

Cite this