The elbow joint is a complex joint, which, when impaired in function, leads to severe disability. In some cases however, an arthroplasty might be an appropriate treatment. In the past four decades, large steps have been taken to optimize this treatment in order to achieve better post-operative outcomes. To understand these progresses and to discover aspects for upcoming improvements, we present a review on the past developments, the present state of affairs and future developments which may improve patient care further.

Aims: The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry.Methods: All TEAs recorded in the Dutch national registry between 2014 and 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and a logistic regression model was used to assess the factors associated with revision.Results: A total of 514 TEAs were included, of which 35 were revised. The five-year implant survival was 91%. Male sex, a higher BMI, and previous surgery to the same elbow showed a statistically significant association with revision (p < 0.036). Of the 35 revised implants, ten (29%) underwent a second revision.Conclusion: This study reports a five-year implant survival of TEA of 91%. Patient factors associated with revision are defined and can be used to optimize informed consent and shared decision-making. There was a high rate of secondary revisions.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):110–119.

Purpose: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is rarely performed compared to other arthroplasties. For many surgical procedures, literature shows better outcomes when they are performed by experienced surgeons and in so-called ‘high-volume’ hospitals. We systematically reviewed the literature on the relationship between surgical volume and outcomes following TEA. Methods: A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases. The literature was systematically reviewed for original studies comparing TEA outcomes among hospitals or surgeons with different annual or career volumes. For each study, data were collected on study design, indications for TEA, number of included patients, implant types, cut-off values for volume, number and types of complications, revision rate and functional outcome measures. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Two studies, which included a combined 2301 TEAs, found that higher surgeon volumes were associated with lower revision rates. The examined complication rates did not differ between high- and low-volume surgeons. In one study, low-hospital volume is associated with an increased risk of revision compared to high-volume hospitals, but for other complication types, no difference was found. Conclusions: Based on the results, the evidence suggests that high-volume centers have a lower revision rate in the long term. No minimum amount of procedures per year can be advised, as the included studies have different cut-off values between groups. As higher surgeon- and center-volume, (therefore presumably experience) appear to yield better outcomes, centralization of total elbow arthroplasty should be encouraged.