Modified anteromedial and anterolateral elbow arthroscopy portals show superiority to standard portals in guiding arthroscopic radial head screw fixation

The role of arthroscopy in the management of adult elbow trauma

Fractures around the elbow are often challenging to treat and in most cases require an extensive approach. Since the development of elbow arthroscopy, most authors have pointed out the potential advantages of a less invasive technique that can be useful for visualization and reduction of the articular fragments with an eventual percutaneous fixation. Arthroscopic techniques provide a limited exposure that may lead to a faster wound healing, lower rate of complications and thus, better recovery of range of motion. However, elbow arthroscopy is also a demanding technique, especially in a swollen and fractured joint, and it is not exempt of risks. The overall rate of complications has been rated from 1.5% to 11% and nerve injury rates from 1.26-7.5%.The objective of this review is to present the arthroscopic setup and general surgical technique for the management of elbow trauma and to define some clear indications. Patient positioning and operating room display is key in order to obtain success. In addition to the arthroscopic equipment, fluoroscopy is almost always necessary for percutaneous fixation and precise preparation is mandatory. In the last decade, literature regarding new portals or surgical tips for arthroscopic treatment of elbow fractures have been published.The main indications for fracture arthroscopic-assisted fixation are those articular fractures involving the coronoid, distal humerus shear fractures in the coronal plane (trochlear and capitellum fractures) and, more controversially, those affecting the radial head. The treatment of these type of fractures all arthroscopically is exponentially demanding as it might also require ligament repair. For coronoid fractures, it can be useful in Morrey type II and III, and O´Driscoll anteromedial facet fractures associated to a posteromedial instability pattern that also require a repair of the LCL. Although excellent results have been published, comparative series are scarce. Radial head fractures can also be approached arthroscopically in simple non-comminute fractures that can be fixed percutaneously.In conclusion, arthroscopy of the elbow is an excellent tool to better understand and visualize articular fractures of the elbow. However, despite the advances in surgical technique, whether it improves clinical and radiological results is still to be proven.

Elbow Arthroscopy for the Treatment of Radial Head Fractures: Surgical Technique and 10 Years of Follow Up Results Compared to Open Surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe the ARIF (Arthroscopic Reduction Internal Fixation) technique for radial head fractures and to compare the results with ORIF (Open Reduction Internal Fixation) at mean 10 years.

METHODS

A total of 32 patients affected by Mason II or III fractures of the radial head who underwent ARIF or ORIF by screws fixation were retrospectively selected and evaluated. A total of 13 patients were treated (40.6%) by ARIF and 19 patients (59.4%) by ORIF. Mean follow-up was 10 years (7-15 years). All patients underwent MEPI and BMRS scores at follow-up, and statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

No statistical significance was reported in Surgical Time (p = 0.805) or BMRS (p = 0.181) values. Significative improvement was recorded in MEPI score (p = 0.036), and between ARIF (98.07, SD ± 4.34) and ORIF (91.57, SD ± 11.67). The ARIF group showed lower incidence of postoperative complications, especially regarding stiffness (15.4% with ORIF at 21.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The radial head ARIF surgical technique represents a reproducible and safe procedure. A long learning curve is required, but with proper experience, it represents a tool that might be beneficial for patients, as it allows a radial head fracture to be treated with minimal tissue damage, evaluation and treatment of the concomitant lesions, and with no limitation of the positioning of screws.

Reliability, validity and critical appraisal of the cross-cultural adapted German version of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS-G)

Background

The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) is a rating system consisting of four dimensions to evaluate elbow performance. It is a common tool for assessment of elbow impairments worldwide. We determined the validity and reliability of its German version (MEPS-G) after cross-cultural adaptation.

Methods

Six investigators examined 57 patients with elbow pathologies. The MEPS-G was compared to validated elbow scores such as the German versions of DASH, the Oxford Elbow Score, pain level and subjective elbow performance on a VAS. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) and validity of the score and its dimensions were also reviewed. Verification was performed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the prevalence and bias with adjusted Kappa (PABAK) and the Spearman correlation.

Results

The IRR of the MEPS-G score was moderate (ICC (2.1) = 0.65). The IRR of the four individual dimensions was moderate to high (K_PABAK = 0.55 -0.81). Validity for the sum score (r = 0.52–0.65) and the dimensions pain (r = 0.53–0.62), range of motion (r = 0.7) and stability (r = − 0.61) was verified. The function subscale reached insufficient validity (r = 0.15–0.39).

Conclusion

The MEPS-G is not sufficiently valid, which is consistent with its English version. The patient-based dimensions were a weakness, demonstrating high risk of bias. There is no general recommendation for the utilization of the MEPS-G as outcome measurement for patients with elbow pathologies.

Anatomic relations of the median nerve to the ulnar insertion of the brachialis muscle: safety issues and implications for medial approaches to the elbow joint

INTRODUCTION

Preventing nerve injury is critical in elbow surgery. Distal extension of medial approaches, required for coronoid fracture fixation and graft-replacement, may endanger the median nerve. This study aims to describe an easily identifiable and reproducible anatomical landmark to localize the median nerve distal to the joint line and to delineate how its relative position changes with elbow flexion and forearm rotation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The median nerve and the ulnar insertion of the brachialis muscle were identified in eleven fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens after dissection over an extended medial approach. The elbow was brought first in full extension and then in 90° flexion, and the shortest distance between the two structures was measured while rotating the forearm in full pronation, neutral position and full supination.

RESULTS

The distance between the median nerve and the brachialis insertion was highest with the elbow flexed and the forearm in neutral position. All distances measured in flexion were larger than those in extension, and all distances measured from the most proximal point of the brachialis insertion were larger than those from the most distal point. Distances in pronation and in supination were smaller than to those in neutral forearm position.

CONCLUSIONS

The ulnar insertion of the brachialis is a reliable landmark to localize and protect the median nerve at the level of the coronoid base. Elbow flexion and neutral forearm position increase significantly the safety margins between the two structures; this information suggests some modifications to the previously described medial elbow approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Basic Science Study.

Validation of a Practical Forearm Supination Strength Measurement Technique in the Large Sample Cohort

INTRODUCTION

The strength of forearm in pronation and supination (P/S) is an important clinical assessment during pre-operative examination as well as in post-operative evaluation. Many clinical trials concerning the measurement of forearm P/S strength were performed using a dynamometer fixed on the wall. The aim of this study was to bring out a simple and reliable technique for the measurement of P/S strength using a dynamometer manually supported and stabilized by an examiner. We hypothesized that there are no differences in evaluation of elbow P/S strength using the dynamometer fixed or the dynamometer stabilized by an operator in healthy people.

METHODS

The study was performed on a cross-sectional cohort of 100 healthy subjects without any history of injuries or previous surgery of the upper limbs. Isometric forearm P/S strengths were measured on the dominant and non-dominant forearms, using the dynamometer fixed on a table, and using the same dynamometer kept by an operator. The measurements were repeated in triplicate at 45°, 90° and 120° of elbow flexion in both upper limbs for all patients.

RESULTS

A total of 100 subjects (50 females, 50 males) were included in the study group. The mean age was 46.5 years (range 25-52 years). Female and male subjects showed no significant differences concerning the mean age (F/M ratio 0.50/0.50). The mean body mass index of all participants was 24.34 ± 3.66 kg/m2.No significant statistics difference was reported between the P/S strength measured using the two detection methods in our study group (45°, 90° and 120° of elbow flexion and both upper limbs).

CONCLUSION

The manually stabilized technique is a valid and reliable technique to assess the P/S strength of the forearm. This is a simple and effective method that may be reproduced in our daily clinical practice as well as in sportive practice.