• Stemless shoulder arthroplasty relies solely on cementless metaphyseal fixation and is designed to avoid stem-related problem such as intraoperative fractures, loosening, stress shielding or stress-risers for periprosthetic fractures.

• Many designs are currently on the market, although only six anatomic and two reverse arthroplasty designs have results published with a minimum of two-year follow-up.

• Compared to stemmed designs, clinical outcome is equally good using stemless designs in the short and medium-term follow-up, which is also the case for overall complication and revision rates.

• Intraoperative fracture rate is lower in stemless compared to stemmed designs, most likely due to the absence of intramedullary preparation and of the implantation of a stem.

• Radiologic abnormalities around the humeral implant are less frequent compared to stemmed implants, possibly related to the closer resemblance to native anatomy.

• Between stemless implants, several significant differences were found in terms of clinical outcome, complication and revision rates, although the level of evidence is low with high study heterogeneity; therefore, firm conclusions could not be drawn.

• There is a need for well-designed long-term randomized trials with sufficient power in order to assess the superiority of stemless over conventional arthroplasty, and of one design over another.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:35-49. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200067

• Primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the elbow can cause disabling symptoms of pain, locking, stiffness, and a limitation in the range of motion. There is no consensus regarding the role of open and arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of symptomatic primary elbow OA. The aim of this study is to systematically review the outcome of surgical debridement. A preoperative/postoperative comparison will be made between the two surgical procedures.

• All studies reporting on debridement as treatment for primary elbow OA with a minimum of one-year follow-up were included. Outcome parameters were functional results, complications, and performance scores.

• Data were extracted from 21 articles. The arthroscopic group consisted of 286 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 40 ± 17 months (range, 16–75). The open group consisted of 300 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 55 ± 20 months (range, 19–85). Both procedures showed improvement in Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range of motion (ROM) flexion-extension, and ROM pronation-supination. Only in ROM flexion was a statistically significant difference in improvement seen between the groups in favour of the open group. The arthroscopic group showed improvement in pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Nothing could be stated about pain VAS scores in the open group due to a lack of data. In the arthroscopic group 18 complications (6%) were described, in the open group 29 complications (12%).

• Surgical debridement is an effective treatment for the disabling symptoms of primary elbow OA with an acceptable complication rate.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:874-882. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190095

• Since the introduction of the radial head prosthesis (RHP) in 1941, many designs have been introduced. It is not clear whether prosthesis design parameters are related to early failure. The aim of this systematic review is to report on failure modes and to explore the association between implant design and early failure.

• A search was conducted to identify studies reporting on failed primary RHP. The results are clustered per type of RHP based on: material, fixation technique, modularity, and polarity. Chi-square tests are used to compare reasons for failure between the groups.

• Thirty-four articles are included involving 152 failed radial head arthroplasties (RHAs) in 152 patients. Eighteen different types of RHPs have been used.

• The most frequent reasons for revision surgery after RHA are (aseptic) loosening (30%), elbow stiffness (20%) and/or persisting pain (17%). Failure occurs after an average of 34 months (range, 0–348 months; median, 14 months).

• Press-fit prostheses fail at a higher ratio because of symptomatic loosening than intentionally loose-fit prostheses and prostheses that are fixed with an expandable stem (p < 0.01).

• Because of the many different types of RHP used to date and the limited numbers and evidence on early failure of RHA, the current data provide no evidence for a specific RHP design.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:659-667. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180099