Skip to main content
. 2017 Sep 25;9(1):63–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2017.09.010

Table 7.

Summary of the data from the recent studies on the use of Allograft Prosthesis Composite for the management of massive skeletal defects in proximal humerus.

Authors Diagnosis No of patients Average age (years) Average Follow up Clinical outcome Radiological Outcome Complications Result Survival
Mansat et al.81 Failed TER 13 62 42 m MEPS: 4 infections 5 revisions
4 Excellent 2 non-unions 3 APC removal
3 Good
1 Fair
5 Poor
Amirfeyz et al.82 Failed TER 10 (11 elbows) 64 75 m MEPS = 74 3 partial resorption in humeral side 1 infection 1 APC removal
8 humeral APC 4 partial resorption in ulnar side
6 Ulnar APC
Morrey et al.83 22 Failed TER 25 60 3.4 y MEPS = 84 92% incorporated with host bone 3 infection 9 reoperations
1 Failed hemiarthroplasty 3 fractures
1 resection arthroplasty 1 non-union 4 resection arthroplasty
1 non-union 1 malunion
Renfree et al.84 5 failed TER 10 (14 APCs) 58 6.5 y BMES = 20 79% incorporated 1 infection 4 allograft related failures
3 humeral non-union HSSES = 37 1 non-union
1 Ulnar non-union 1 complete resorption of olecranon
1 OM proximal ulna

Abbreviations: m = months, y = years, TER = Total Elbow Arthroplasty, MEPS = Mayo Elbow Performance Score, OM = Osteomyelitis, BMES = Bryan-Morrey Elbow Score, HSSES = Hospital for Special Surgery Elbow Score.