Static progressive versus dynamic splinting for posttraumatic elbow stiffness: a systematic review of 232 patients

Effectiveness of the static progressive Joint Active System splint in improving upper extremity joint stiffness

PURPOSE

Injuries to the upper extremity often result in stiffness. The joint capsule may lose its elastic properties, limiting motion. Most modalities for increasing motion are based on capsule stretching, and usually involve physical or occupational therapy. We tested the hypothesis that the Joint Active System static-progressive splint is helpful in increasing range of motion in stiff joints after failure of other treatments.

METHODS

Candidates for the Joint Active System splint were mostly patients with upper extremity trauma that required surgery, if they plateaued after therapy but still had stiffness. A retrospective review was performed of all patients from 2015 to 2019 that met our inclusion criteria. Etiologies of stiffness and patient demographics were documented. Range of motion was recorded before and after treatment and, when available, functional scores were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were treated with the Joint Active System splint; 5 were excluded, leaving 39 for analysis: 15 elbow, 14 wrist and 10 proximal interphalangeal joints. All patients had received therapy before using the Joint Active System and 11 had tried a dynamic splint in addition to therapy. All joints showed significant improvement in motion after treatment: from 66.5° to 95.7° in the elbow, 63.5° to 81.1° in the wrist and 33.2° to 51.8° in the proximal interphalangeal joint. When functional scores were available before and after treatment, there was significant improvement for both elbow and wrist. Even when the Joint Active System was started many months after injury, it was effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite reaching a plateau with therapy, the Joint Active System static-progressive splint is effective in improving range of motion in elbow, wrist and finger joints with stiffness following injury or surgery.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective case series.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level IV.

The examination and treatment of soft tissue contracture of the elbow

Treatment of the stiff elbow can be a challenging task. A thorough understanding of normal elbow anatomy and the potential causes of elbow contracture are essential for the development of effective treatment strategies. This chapter provides a review of key points for the treating surgeon including normal elbow anatomy, etiological factors that commonly contribute to elbow stiffness, physical examination and imaging of the stiff elbow, and treatment options for contracture correction.

Pre- and post-treatment in flexor tendon tenolysis: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Glide deficit of the distal flexors' tendons following primary repair in zone 1-3 are very common. Adhesions of tendons have multi factorial origins and are closely related to the healing of the affected tissues. The surgical practice used to resolve these complications is tenolysis.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) relate to pain and Total Active Motion (TAM) of adult patients of both sexes undergoing tenolysis surgery. The results will then be compared to existing research to confirm their significance.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-series.

METHODS

Retrospective data for TAM and pain VAS were extracted from the medical records for 63 patients (73 fingers) who underwent flexor tenolysis between 2017 and 2019. Data were compared pre-operatively and 3 months after surgery. All patients underwent pre- and post-surgery therapy by hand therapists.

RESULTS

The sample presented very encouraging improvements, except in the VAS and active range of motion (AROM) of thumb where some patients maintained the same assessment. The fingers reported statistically significant results, whereas the thumb group did not meet significant criteria. Overall, TAM improved from 134.6° to 196.7 and VAS decreased from 2.7 to 1.2.

DISCUSSION

According to the results and the data change between pre- and post-treatment, the sample demonstrated improvements in all areas examined, reporting statistically significant results for the fingers with an improvement of TAM of 62.1° with a percentage value (%TAM) of 75.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

A specific treatment for this type of surgery is required for the patients so they can return to their daily and working activities. This article can be used as a starting point for further studies.

Biomechanical study of the effect of traction on elbow joint capsule contracture

Dynamic orthoses have a significant effect on the treatment of elbow capsular contracture. Because of the lack of quantitative research on traction forces, determining the appropriate traction force to help stretch soft tissues and maintain the joint's range of motion is a challenge in the rehabilitation process. We developed a human elbow finite element (FE) model incorporating the activity behavior of the muscles and considering different capsular contracture locations, including total, anterior and posterior capsular contractures, to analyze the internal biomechanical responses of different capsular contracture models during flexion (30 to 80 degrees). Traction loads of 10, 20, 30 and 40 N were applied to the ulna and radius at the maximum flexion angle (80 degrees) to explore the appropriate traction loads at week 4 after a joint capsule injury. We observed a significant increase in posterior capsule stress with anterior capsular contracture (ACC), and the maximum peak stress was 1.3 times higher than that in the healthy model. During the fourth week after elbow capsule injury, the appropriate traction forces for total capsule contracture (TCC), ACC and posterior capsule contracture (PCC) were 20, 10 and 20 N, respectively; these forces maintained a stable biomechanical environment for the elbow joint and achieved a soft tissue pulling effect, thus increasing elbow mobility. The results can be used as a quantitative guide for the rehabilitation physicians to determine the traction load for a specific patient.

Elbow flexion contractures in neonatal brachial plexus palsy: A one-year comparison of dynamic orthosis and serial casting

OBJECTIVE

Elbow flexion contractures are common complications of neonatal brachial plexus palsy, but evidence on how to treat these contractures is weak. This study compared the treatment of elbow flexion contractures using a dynamic orthosis or serial circular casting.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted with one-year follow-up. Children with an elbow flexion contracture of ≥30° were treated with either a night-worn dynamic orthosis for one year or serial casting for four weeks followed by night splinting. For pragmatic reasons, some participants were included in an open part of this study, this group was also analyzed separately. Degree of contracture and goal attainment scaling was evaluated at baseline and after 8, 20 and 54 weeks.

RESULTS

55 patients were analyzed in this trial, 32 of whom were randomized to treatment. At one-year follow-up of the randomized group, both dynamic splinting (median -8.5°, interquartile range [IQR] -13.5, -5) and serial casting (median -11.0°, IQR -16, -5) resulted in significant reduction of contracture (P < 0.001). The reduction was significantly greater with serial casting in the first 20 weeks, but not at one-year follow-up (P = 0.683). In the entire cohort, the individual functional goals had been reached in 24 out of 32 cases (80%) of dynamic splinting and 18 out of 23 cases (82%) of serial casting, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The dynamic night orthosis is comparable to serial casting for treating elbow flexion contractures in children with brachial plexus birth injury. We recommend selecting one of these treatment modalities in close consultation with parents and patients.

Recovery From Open Osteocapsular Débridement for Primary Elbow Osteoarthritis Is Rapid and Does Not Depend on Preoperative Motion

Background and Hypothesis

Osteocapsular débridement is a surgical treatment for functionally limiting primary elbow osteoarthritis (PEOA). We hypothesized that postoperative improvement in range of motion (ROM) following elbow osteocapsular débridement could be grouped into predictable patterns. We also hypothesized that significant improvements in ROM frequently take place for up to 6 months after surgery.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent open elbow débridement for PEOA was performed. Demographic information and surgical approach were recorded. ROM data were also collected at preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative intervals of 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Growth mixture modeling and latent class growth analysis were performed to identify groups of motion recovery trajectories, while Student’s t-tests were performed to compare ROM data between intervals.

Results

Our study included 76 patients who underwent open elbow débridement (9 with a lateral approach, 55 medial, and 12 both) for PEOA. The mean preoperative arc of motion was 95° ± 22°. This improved to a mean final motion arc of 127° ± 11 at final follow-up, which was 92% of the mean intraoperative arc. The mean time to achieve final motion was 3 months, with 79% of patients achieving their final ROM arc by this point. Patients achieved an average of 85% of their final arc of motion by the 2-week postoperative visit (92% of final flexion and 61% of final extension). Growth mixture modeling and latent class growth analysis did not identify any statistically significant groupings for postoperative ROM progression trajectories. Arc of motion preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 2 weeks postoperatively did not correlate with the final arc of motion. There were no characteristics or thresholds of motion which conferred a higher likelihood of achieving a better result postoperatively.

Conclusions

ROM recovery after osteocapsular débridement for PEOA is not dependent on preoperative, intraoperative, or 2-week postoperative arcs of motion. Most of the ROM recovery occurs in the early postoperative period, with flexion restored preferentially faster than extension. The final arc of motion can be expected by 3 months postoperatively. This knowledge has potential benefit in affecting patients’ personal time commitment to rehabilitation and the overall cost for therapy and splinting beyond the 3-month time point.

A modified-delphi study establishing consensus in the therapeutic management of posttrauamtic elbow stiffness

STUDY DESIGN

Web-based modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND

Therapy is widely considered the first choice of treatment for posttraumatic stiffness of the elbow since loss of motion is a common sequela following traumatic elbow injuries. There is high variability in practice patterns for the management of the posttraumtic elbow.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to identify the current therapeutic management of posttraumatic elbow stiffness using expert consensus.

METHODS

This study surveyed experts using a web-based 3 round modified Delphi method. Quantitative data and comments were collected during the first round. Questions with Likert scaling were used to identify consensus (defined as 75% agreement) with each statement and comment boxes enabled open-ended responses to gather expert opinion. Lack of consensus and data from comments guided the second-round of the survey. This process was repeated after Round 2 to develop the Round 3 survey. Consensus was achieved at Round 3 and no further rounds were needed.

RESULTS

Round 1 included 34 experts (response rate 20%), not all experts were able to continue through all rounds. Round 2 included 18 experts and Round 3 included 15 experts. Survey items were categorized as follows: examination procedures, therapeutic interventions, orthotic intervention considerations, contributing patient factors, and clinical decisions and rehabilitation challenges. Twenty-five percent of items achieved consensus after Round 1, 30% after Round 2 and 52% after Round 3. Although most participants agreed that orthotic intervention is critical to patient outcomes, there were conflicting thoughts about the orthotic design and wearing schedule.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this web-based modified Delphi study helped to establish a current body of knowledge using expert consensus to guide practice and identify specific questions that can be studied in future clinical studies on posttraumatic elbow stiffness.

Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for open elbow arthrolysis : the Shanghai Prediction model for Elbow Stiffness Surgical Outcome

AIMS

The aim of this study was to develop and internally validate a prognostic nomogram to predict the probability of gaining a functional range of motion (ROM ≥ 120°) after open arthrolysis of the elbow in patients with post-traumatic stiffness of the elbow.

METHODS

We developed the Shanghai Prediction Model for Elbow Stiffness Surgical Outcome (SPESSO) based on a dataset of 551 patients who underwent open arthrolysis of the elbow in four institutions. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected from medical records. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model was used to optimize the selection of relevant features. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to build the SPESSO. Its prediction performance was evaluated using the concordance index (C-index) and a calibration graph. Internal validation was conducted using bootstrapping validation.

RESULTS

BMI, the duration of stiffness, the preoperative ROM, the preoperative intensity of pain, and grade of post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the elbow were identified as predictors of outcome and incorporated to construct the nomogram. SPESSO displayed good discrimination with a C-index of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.81). A high C-index value of 0.70 could still be reached in the interval validation. The calibration graph showed good agreement between the nomogram prediction and the outcome.

CONCLUSION

The newly developed SPESSO is a valid and convenient model which can be used to predict the outcome of open arthrolysis of the elbow. It could assist clinicians in counselling patients regarding the choice and expectations of treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):486-494.

Progression Patterns of Range of Motion Progression after Open Release for Posttraumatic Elbow Stiffness

Background & Hypothesis

Post-traumatic stiffness of the elbow may be treated surgically with open osteocapsular release. This study investigated postoperative range of motion (ROM) improvements after this procedure. We hypothesized that there would be predictable recovery patterns and significant progress up to 6 months after surgery.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent open elbow release for post-traumatic stiffness (PTS) was performed. Demographic information and surgical approach were recorded. Patients with ipsilateral primary elbow osteoarthritis were excluded. Range of motion (ROM) data were collected at preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative intervals of 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Growth mixture modeling (GMM) and latent class growth analysis (LCGA) were performed to identify motion recovery trajectory groups, and Student's t-tests were performed to compare ROM data between intervals.

Results

One hundred and eighty-seven patients who underwent open elbow release for PTS were included (112 with a medial approach, 50 lateral, and 25 both). The mean preoperative arc was 84° ± 31, and the arc of motion at final follow-up was 119° ± 19 (P < .05). The mean time to the final follow-up arc of motion was 16 weeks, with 56% of patients achieving their final arc by their 3-month follow-up visit. The largest improvement was seen with extension between 6 weeks and 3 months, where 26% of the extension at final follow-up was gained. Most of the recovery occurred within the first 3 months postoperatively, with small improvements thereafter. GMM and LCGA did not identify statistically significant groups for postoperative ROM progression trajectories. Arc of motion preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 2 weeks postoperatively did not correlate with the final arc of motion. There were no demographic or historical characteristics, or thresholds of motion, which conferred a higher likelihood of achieving a better result postoperatively.

Conclusions

ROM recovery after surgical release for post-traumatic elbow stiffness did not depend on the preoperative, intraoperative, or 2-week postoperative arcs of motion. Most ROM recovery occurs early after surgery, and maximal arc of motion can be expected by approximately 16 weeks postoperatively. This knowledge may inform patients about their expected rehabilitation and splinting time and reduce the total costs of therapy.

REVIEW OF ARTICULATED ELBOW ORTHOTICS FOR JOINT STIFFNESS REHABILITATION

ABSTRACT Joint stiffness is the most common complication in elbow injuries, presenting several etiologies and pathophysiological mechanisms that hinder treatment and prognosis. Prevention and treatment of joint contracture depend on the cause of stiffness, and early intervention should modify its outcomes. The methods used may be conservative or surgical, alone or in combination, according to each individual situation. Objective: Review articles on articulated elbow orthosis for joint stiffness rehabilitation. Methods: A literature review was conducted in journals available at the PubMed, Medline and LILACS databases, using the following Health Science Descriptors (DeCS): orthotic devices; braces; elbow; elbow joint; contracture; joint disorders. It sought to retrieve and analyze studies with the highest level of evidence that have already been conducted on articulated elbow orthosis for joint stiffness rehabilitation. Results: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, four articles were included from PubMed and none from Medline or LILACS. Of the four PubMed articles, two were systematic reviews and two were randomized clinical trials. Conclusion: Articulated elbow orthoses can benefit joint stiffness treatment, improving range of motion and pain, showing superior effect compared to non-articulated plaster orthotics. Level of Evidence III, Systematic Review of Level III Studies.

Mobilizing orthoses in the management of post-traumatic elbow contractures: A survey of Australian hand therapy practice

STUDY DESIGN

Mixed-methods survey.

INTRODUCTION

Elbow stiffness and contractures often develop after trauma. There is a lack of evidence on mobilizing orthoses and the factors guiding orthotic prescription.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

To investigate hand therapists' orthotic preferences for varying extension and flexion deficits, and describe the factors affecting orthotic choice for post-traumatic elbow contractures.

METHODS

103 members responded to the electronic survey via the Australian Hand Therapy Association mailing list. Five post-surgical scenarios were used to gather information regarding orthotic preferences, reasons and orthotic protocol: (1) week 8 with 55° extension deficit; (2) week 12 with 30° extension deficit; (3) week 12 with 55° extension deficit; (4) week 8 with flexion limited to 100°; (5) week 12 with limited flexion.

RESULTS

Most responders (89.9%) used mobilizing orthoses, predominantly for extension (88.5%). Orthotic preferences for scenarios 1 to 5 were (1) serial static (78.3%); (2) custom-made three-point static progressive (38.8%); (3) custom-made turnbuckle static progressive (33.8%); (4) "no orthosis" (27.9%); and (5) custom-made hinged (27.1%) and nonhinged (27.1%) dynamic. Choices were based on "effectiveness," "ease for patients to apply and wear," and "ease of fabrication/previous experience/comfortable with design." The recommended daily dosage for extension was 6 to 12 hour.

DISCUSSION

This is the first known study that reflects on the use of mobilizing orthoses in post-traumatic elbows in Australia.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobilizing orthoses are used routinely for post-traumatic elbows in Australia. Extension deficits are managed with serial static and static progressive orthoses at weeks 8 and 12, respectively. Research is needed to assess whether orthotic intervention before 12 weeks is beneficial in reducing contractures.

The post-traumatic stiff elbow: A review

Upper extremity function is highly dependent on elbow motion in order to adequately position the hand in space. Loss of this motion due to stiffness following trauma can cause patients substantial disability, leading to difficulties with performing activities of daily living. Post-traumatic elbow stiffness is challenging to treat, and therefore prevention is of paramount importance. Key measures that can be used to prevent elbow stiffness are early surgical intervention for fracture or joint instability, as well as active mobilisation, which helps to prevent oedema and an increase in viscosity of inflammatory exudates. Other options include splinting and continuous passive mobilisation. Once non-operative methods of addressing post-traumatic stiffness have been exhausted, arthrolysis of the stiff elbow can be performed via open or arthroscopic means depending on the type of pathology involved (intrinsic or extrinsic contracture) and experience of the surgeon with elbow arthroscopy. The particular open approach used depends on several factors, which include the formation and location of any heterotopic ossification present. Improvements in range of motion can be expected with both open and arthroscopic techniques, which can be effective and rewarding for patients. Post-operative rehabilitation, particularly early active mobilisation, should be considered essential in order to optimise patient outcomes following surgery. This review aims to explore elbow stiffness following traumatic aetiology, assessing its pathogenesis and prevention, as well as reviewing surgical treatment options and post-operative rehabilitation.

The use of static progressive and serial static orthoses in the management of elbow contractures after complex fracture dislocation injuries: A pediatric case study

INTRODUCTION

Contractures are the most common complication after traumatic injury to the elbow. Although evidence supporting the use of static progressive and serial static orthoses to help recover range of motion after these complex injuries is growing, there is currently a paucity of literature exploring its efficacy in pediatric populations.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The following case study presents the results of the use of static progressive and serial static orthoses with a young patient who presented with both elbow extension and flexion contractures after a complex fracture dislocation injury.

RESULTS

A noted and consistent improvement in both elbow extension and flexion can be observed after commencement of the static progressive and serial static orthoses. These results are consistent with the literature exploring the efficacy of these orthoses with adult populations with traumatic elbow injuries.

DISCUSSION

Further studies evaluating the use of static progressive and serial static orthoses in the management of elbow contractures after traumatic injuries in pediatric populations is needed to establish best practices with this particular patient population.

What constitutes a clinically important change in Mayo Elbow Performance Index and range of movement after open elbow arthrolysis?

Aims

This study aimed to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) under distribution- and anchor-based methods for the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and range of movement (ROM) after open elbow arthrolysis (OEA). We also assessed the proportion of patients who achieved MCID and SCB; and identified the factors associated with achieving MCID.

Methods

A cohort of 265 patients treated by OEA were included. The MEPI and ROM were evaluated at baseline and at two-year follow-up. Distribution-based MDC was calculated with confidence intervals (CIs) reflecting 80% (MDC 80), 90% (MDC 90), and 95% (MDC 95) certainty, and MCID with changes from baseline to follow-up. Anchor-based MCID (anchored to somewhat satisfied) and SCB (very satisfied) were calculated using a five-level Likert satisfaction scale. Multivariate logistic regression of factors affecting MCID achievement was performed.

Results

The MDC increased substantially based on selected CIs (MDC 80, MDC 90, and MDC 95), ranging from 5.0 to 7.6 points for the MEPI, and from 8.2° to 12.5° for ROM. The MCID of the MEPI were 8.3 points under distribution-based and 12.2 points under anchor-based methods; distribution- and anchor-based MCID of ROM were 14.1° and 25.0°. The SCB of the MEPI and ROM were 17.3 points and 43.4°, respectively. The proportion of the patients who attained anchor-based MCID for the MEPI and ROM were 74.0% and 94.7%, respectively; furthermore, 64.2% and 86.8% attained SCB. Non-dominant arm (p = 0.022), higher preoperative MEPI rating (p < 0.001), and postoperative visual analogue scale pain score (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of not achieving MCID for the MEPI, while atraumatic causes (p = 0.040) and higher preoperative ROM (p = 0.005) were independent risk factors for ROM.

Conclusion

In patients undergoing OEA, the MCID for the increased MEPI is 12.2 points and 25° increased ROM. The SCB is 17.3 points and 43.3°, respectively. Future studies using the MEPI and ROM to assess OEA outcomes should report not only statistical significance but also clinical importance.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):366–372.

Radial nerve palsy associated with closed humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review of 1758 patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Humeral shaft fractures are often associated with radial nerve palsy (RNP) (8-16%). The primary aim of this systematic review was to assess the incidence of primary and secondary RNP in closed humeral shaft fractures. The secondary aim was to compare the recovery rate of primary RNP and the incidence of secondary RNP between operative and non-operative treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in 'Trip Database', 'Embase' and 'PubMed' to identify original studies reporting on RNP in closed humeral shaft fractures. The Coleman Methodology Score was used to grade the quality of the studies. The incidence and recovery of RNP, fracture characteristics and treatment characteristics were extracted. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare operative versus non-operative treatment.

RESULTS

Forty studies reporting on 1758 patients with closed humeral shaft fractures were included. The incidence of primary RNP was 10%. There was no difference in the recovery rate of primary RNP when comparing operative treatment with radial nerve exploration (98%) versus non-operative treatment (91%) (p = 0.29). The incidence of secondary RNP after operative and non-operative treatment was 4% and 0.4%, respectively (p < 0.01).

INTERPRETATION

One-in-ten patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture has an associated primary RNP, of which > 90% recovers without the need of (re-)intervention. No beneficial effect of early exploration on the recovery of primary RNP could be demonstrated when comparing patients managed non-operatively with those explored early. Patients managed operatively for closed humeral shaft fractures have a higher risk of developing secondary RNP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Systematic Review.

Open elbow arthrolysis for post-traumatic elbow stiffness: an update

Post-traumatic elbow stiffness is a disabling condition that remains challenging for upper limb surgeons. Open elbow arthrolysis is commonly used for the treatment of stiff elbow when conservative therapy has failed. Multiple questions commonly arise from surgeons who deal with this disease. These include whether the patient has post-traumatic stiff elbow, how to evaluate the problem, when surgery is appropriate, how to perform an excellent arthrolysis, what the optimal postoperative rehabilitation is, and how to prevent or reduce the incidence of complications. Following these questions, this review provides an update and overview of post-traumatic elbow stiffness with respect to the diagnosis, preoperative evaluation, arthrolysis strategies, postoperative rehabilitation, and prevention of complications, aiming to provide a complete diagnosis and treatment path. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:576-584.

Management of the failed radial head arthroplasty

Primary radial head arthroplasty (RHA) produces good or excellent results in approximately 85% of patients. However, complications are not uncommon and have been described in up to 23% of cases.

The number of RHA is increasing, and consequently the absolute number of complications is expected to rise as well. The decision on whether to revise or remove the prosthesis seems more likely to depend on the preference of the surgeon or the hospital, rather than on objectifying problems with the prosthesis.

The current article presents an algorithm for the work-up and treatment of most complications that can occur following RHA.

Five subgroups of problems were identified: osteoarthritis, stiffness, instability, infection and implant-related issues.

In short, the preferred treatment depends mainly on the chondral condition and stability of the elbow joint.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:398-407. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190055

A new pathologic classification for elbow stiffness based on our experience in 216 patients

BACKGROUND

Elbow stiffness commonly causes functional impairment and upper-limb disability. This study aimed to develop a new pathologic classification to further understand and standardize elbow arthrolysis from a new perspective, as well as to determine clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Extension-flexion dysfunction was classified into 4 types: EF_I, tethers alone; EF_II, tethers with blocks; EF_III, articular malformation; and EF_IV, bony ankylosis. Forearm rotation dysfunction was classified into 3 types: FR_I, contracture alone; FR_II, radial head malunion or nonunion; and FR_III, proximal radioulnar bony ankylosis. A total of 216 patients with elbow stiffness were prospectively included and categorized preoperatively. All surgical procedures were performed by the same chief surgeon; different types underwent specific procedures. Patient data, elbow motion, and functional scores were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean range of motion (ROM) increased from 40° preoperatively to 118° at final follow-up; 88% of patients regained ROM of 100° or greater. The forearm rotation arc (FRA) with forearm rotation dysfunction increased from a preoperative mean of 76° to 128°; 82% of patients regained an FRA of 100° or greater. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) increased from 63 to 91 points; the proportion of patients with good or excellent results was 95%. EF_I patients had the best ROM (129°) and MEPI (93 points) and EF_IV patients achieved the most-changed ROM (116°), whereas EF_III patients had the worst ROM (104°) and MEPI (84 points) and the least-changed ROM (64°). The FRA was best in FR_I patients (142°), followed by FR_II patients (118°), and worst in FR_III patients (82°); in contrast, the changed FRA was greatest in FR_III patients (82°), followed by FR_II patients (64°), and least in FR_I patients (37°).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the proposed pathologic classification provides a new perspective on the understanding and standardization of elbow arthrolysis, providing satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Post-traumatic elbow stiffness: Pathogenesis and current treatments

Post-traumatic elbow stiffness is a major cause of functional impairment after elbow trauma. A stiff elbow limits patients' ability to position their hand in space for optimal use of their upper extremities, and as such, is a frequent indication for reoperation. This article reviews current concepts on the pathogenesis of post-traumatic elbow stiffness. Current nonoperative treatment options include therapy, bracing, and manipulation under anesthesia, while operative treatment options include arthroscopic and open arthrolysis. The pros and cons of various treatment options are discussed, with a focus on the evidence supporting their use, the expected functional gains, and associated complications. Future directions in post-traumatic elbow stiffness are highlighted.

Why does radial head arthroplasty fail today? A systematic review of recent literature

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.

Static progressive stretch orthosis-consensus modality to treat knee stiffness-rationale and literature review

The current literature supports static progressive stretch (SPS) orthoses as the consensus modality to treat joint stiffness as an adjunct to manual therapy. Over 50 published studies prove the efficacy and safety of this modality as an adjunct to therapy to improve range of motion (ROM) as well as decrease stiffness and pain. Data from a large prospective study on SPS effectiveness identified a 90% improvement in ROM, 84% reduction in stiffness and swelling, 70% reduction in pain, and no reports of complications or injury. Another 13 studies evaluating patients with knee stiffness have shown excellent results with SPS, and a reduced need for manipulation under anesthesia or additional surgeries. The bidirectional SPS device allows for ROM therapy in both flexion and extension, uses short, 5-minute incremental stretches for up to a 30-minute session applied 1 to 3 times per day for 8 weeks, though treatment might be needed for longer durations (8 to 12 weeks) in cases with chronic stiffness/contracture, to improve motion and significantly reduces need for manipulation or surgery for treatment of knee fibrosis. Earlier application of SPS therapy, even immediately postoperative following corrective surgery for motion loss, can greatly improve the results for patients who have limitations in knee motion.

What Range of Motion and Functional Results Can Be Expected After Open Arthrolysis with Hinged External Fixation For Severe Posttraumatic Elbow Stiffness?

BACKGROUND

The elbow is more susceptible to loss of motion after trauma than any other joint. Open arthrolysis often is performed for posttraumatic elbow stiffness if the stiffness does not improve with nonsurgical treatment, but the midterm results of this procedure and factors that may limit recovery have not been widely studied.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We reviewed patients who had undergone open arthrolysis with hinged external fixator for severe posttraumatic elbow stiffness (ROM ≤ 60°) with a minimum of 5 years followup to (1) analyze ROM gains; (2) assess functional improvement with the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and DASH, quality of life with the SF-36, pain with VAS, and ulnar nerve function with the Amadio rating scale and Dellon classification; and (3) identify complications and risk factors that might hinder mid-term elbow motion recovery after this procedure.

METHODS

Between March 2011 and December 2012, we generally offered patients with elbow stiffness an open arthrolysis procedure when function did not improve with 6 months of nonoperative therapy, and no contraindications such as immature heterotopic ossification or complete destruction of articular cartilage were present. During that time, 161 patients underwent open arthrolysis for posttraumatic elbow stiffness at our institution; 49 of them satisfied the study inclusion criteria (adults with elbow ROM ≤ 60° as a result of trauma) and exclusion criteria (stiffness caused by burns or central nervous system injuries, causative trauma associated with nonunion or malunion of the elbow, severe articular damage that would have necessitated joint arthroplasty, or prior elbow release). In general, a combined medial-lateral approach to the elbow was performed to address the soft tissue tethers and any blocks to elbow motion, and a hinged external fixator was applied for 6 weeks to maintain elbow stability and improve the efficacy of postoperative rehabilitation. These patients were evaluated retrospectively at a mean followup period of 69 months (range, 62-83 months), and demographics, disease characteristics, arthrolysis details, pre- and postoutcome measures as noted, and complications were recorded via an electronic database. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ROM recovery.

RESULTS

At final followup, total ROM increased from a preoperative mean of 27 ± 20° to a postoperative mean of 131 ± 11° (mean difference, 104°; 95% CI, 98°-111°; p < 0.001), and 98% (48 of 49) of patients achieved a functional ROM of 30° to 130°. Improvements were also found in functional scores (MEPI: 54 ± 12 to 95 ± 7, mean difference, 41 points; DASH: 48 ± 17 to 8 ± 8, mean difference, 40 points; both p < 0.001), life quality (physical SF-36: 46 ± 11 to 81 ± 12, mean difference, 35 points; mental SF-36: 43 ± 14 to 80 ± 9, mean difference, 37 points; both p < .001), pain (VAS: 2.5 ± 2.4 to 0.4 ± 0.8; mean difference, 2.0 points; p < 0.001), and ulnar nerve function (Amadio score: 7.8 ± 1.9 to 8.4 ± 0.8; mean difference, 0.6 points; p = 0.004). A total of 18% (nine of 49 patients) developed complications, including new-onset or exacerbated nerve symptoms (four patients), recurrent heterotopic ossification (two patients), and pin-related infections (three patients). No patients underwent subsequent surgery for any of the above complications. Lastly, the medium-term ROM was divided into ROM ≤ 120° (n = 9) and ROM > 120° (n = 40). After controlling for potential confounding variables such as duration of stiffness and tobacco use, we found that tobacco use was the only independent risk factor examined (odds ratio, 9; 95% CI, 2-47; p = 0.009) associated with recovery of ROM.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfactory medium-term results were found for open arthrolysis with hinged external fixation with our protocol in patients who had severe posttraumatic elbow stiffness. Appropriate and sufficient releases of tethered soft tissues and correction of any blocks that affect elbow motion intraoperatively, a dedicated team approach, and an aggressive and systematic postoperative rehabilitation program are the core steps for this procedure. Additionally, the importance of preoperative discontinuation of tobacco use should be emphasized.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Determining the effective timing of an open arthrolysis for post-traumatic elbow stiffness: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Following trauma, the elbow is the most susceptible to restricted motion among all joints. Open arthrolysis is often performed for post-traumatic elbow stiffness if that stiffness does not improve with non-operative management. However, the optimal timing for performing an open arthrolysis remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome (elbow motion and function) and the rate of complications among patients who had undergone early, median and late release procedures to establish an optimal time interval following the injury, after which, an effective open arthrolysis can be performed.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we included total 133 patients, who had undergone open arthrolysis for post-traumatic elbow stiffness. The subjects were divided into 3 groups, with 31 patients in the early release group (arthrolysis performed at 6–10 months after injury), 78 patients in the median release group (at 11–20 months), and 24 patients in the late release group (at > 20 months). The release procedure in all patients was performed by the same surgeon, using the same technique. The general data, functional performance, and complications, if any, were retrospectively documented for all patients and statistically analysed.

Results

The demographic data and disease characteristics of all patients were comparable at baseline. Postoperatively, no significant differences were found among the three groups with respect to the range of motion (p = 0.067), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (p = 0.350) and its ratings (p = 0.329), visual analog scale score for pain (p = 0.227), Dellon classification for ulnar nerve symptoms (p = 0.497), and each discrete complication (all p values > 0.05).

Conclusions

At the final follow-up, our results showed no significant difference in the postoperative elbow motion capacities, functional scores and the rates of complications among patients who had undergone an early, median, and late release. Therefore, we have recommended that an early arthrolysis would be preferable due to its multiple advantages, and the conventionally observed interval of > 1 year after the injury, could be shortened.

Level of evidence

Level III; Retrospective Cohort Design; Therapeutic Study.

Patient satisfaction and outcomes of static progressive stretch bracing: a 10-year prospective analysis

Background

Multiple surgical and non-surgical modalities are available for patients suffering from shoulder elbow, forearm, wrist, knee and ankle stiffness. For most patients, bracing can provide optimal therapy to restore functional range of motion (ROM). Three commonly used bracing mechanisms include static progressive stretch (SPS), turnbuckle, and dynamic bracing. However, although, in general, these three brace types have been shown to have successful outcomes, there are a number of different manufacturers, and company specific designs might affect outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze 10 years of prospectively collected patient satisfaction and outcomes data from a single brace company. Specifically, we evaluated: (I) mobility, (II) pain, (III) stiffness, (IV) swelling, and (V) any adverse events of patients treated with an SPS brace.

Methods

From 2007 to 2017, data from a total of 167,751 patients treated with a JAS Brace (Joint Active Systems Inc., Effingham, IL, USA) were prospectively collected through a cross-sectional survey addressing various outcomes such as pain, stiffness, swelling and mobility. More specifically, patients were asked "Are you having pain?", "Do you have any stiffness?", "Do you have any swelling?", and "Do you feel your mobility has improved?" Patients who answered "yes" were then asked to categorize their response as either worse, same, or better (or improvement) for pain, stiffness, and swelling. For mobility, patients answered either "yes", "no", or "undecided". This data was then graphed and a yearly trends analysis was performed. We also assessed the number of complaints as well as any device related adverse events.

Results

In 2008, 59% of patients reported no pain, 45% no stiffness, and 79% no swelling after device use. Those numbers increased by 2013, to 70% of patients reporting no pain, 79% reporting no stiffness, and 84% reporting no swelling after brace use. A consistent positive trend was also seen for mobility, with at least 90% of patients reporting improved mobility after orthosis use. The number of complaints decreased from 38 in 2007 to 3 in 2017. No patients experienced any device related serious injuries.

Conclusions

Overall, to the best of the author's knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate a brace designed to improve ROM also has significant effect on pain, stiffness, and swelling. These results are of particular importance, since no other study reports prospective data on thousands of patients showing that a bracing system substantially reduces pain and stiffness. These data indicate that not only or these SPS braces effective in improving functional ROM with high rate of success and no significant complications, but this bracing system has a significant effect on improving pain and stiffness. Based on the results from this study, patients suffering from shoulder, elbow, forearm, wrist, knee and/or ankle pathology can expect excellent clinical outcomes by using one of the above braces.

Post-traumatic stiff elbow

Post-traumatic and post-operative stiffness of the elbow joint is relatively common and may in pronounced cases markedly interfere with normal upper extremity function.Soft-tissue contractures and heterotopic bone formation are two major causes of limited movement.Extensive recent research has elucidated many of the pathways contributing to these conditions, but the exact mechanisms are still unknown.In the early phase of soft-tissue contractures conservative treatment may be valuable, but in longstanding cases operative treatment is often necessary.Several different options are available depending on the severity of the condition and the underlying offending structures. Surgical treatment may allow significant gains in movement but rarely complete restoration, and complications are not uncommon.The following presentation reviews the recent literature on pathomechanisms and treatment alternatives. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170062.

Continuous passive motion and physical therapy (CPM) versus physical therapy (PT) versus delayed physical therapy (DPT) after surgical release for elbow contractures; a study protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The elbow is prone to stiffness after trauma. To regain functional elbow motion several conservative- and surgical treatment options are available. Conservative treatment includes physical therapy, intra-articular injections with corticosteroids and a static progressive or dynamic splinting program. If conservative treatment fails, an operative release of the posttraumatic stiff elbow is often performed. The best Evidence-Based rehabilitation protocol for patients after an operative release is unknown to date and differs per surgeon, hospital and country. Options include early- or delayed motion supervised by a physical therapist, immediate continuous passive motion (CPM), (night) splinting and a static progressive or dynamic splinting program.

METHODS/DESIGN

The SET-Study (Stiff Elbow Trial) is a single-centre, prospective, randomized controlled trial. The primary objective of this study is to compare the active Range of Motion (ROM) (flexion arc and rotational arc) twelve months after surgery between three groups. The first group will receive in-hospital CPM in combination with early motion Physical Therapy (PT) supervised by a physical therapist, the second group will receive only in-hospital early motion PT supervised by a physical therapist and the third group will receive outpatient supervised PT from postoperative day seven till ten. Secondary outcome measures will be Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), the quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) score, Visual Analogue pain Scale in rest and activity (VAS), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Short Form (SF)-36, the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Revised (CESD-R) and the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) for the upper limb.

DISCUSSION

A successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the best rehabilitation protocol in order to (re)gain optimal motion after surgical release of the stiff elbow.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register: NTR6067 , 31-8-2016.

Surgical management of the elderly elbow

The elbow has a major role in helping with the positioning of the hand in space. Any pathology of the joint can result in pain, loss of function and difficulties with activities of daily living. With an increasingly elderly population the degenerative conditions affecting the elbow are becoming more prevalent. Besides traumatic injury, the more commonly encountered problems are osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, nerve compression and stiffness. An awareness of these conditions is important for those who provide care to this patient group. Whilst many of these conditions can be managed conservatively in primary care, some patients are referred to secondary care and elect for surgical treatments. This review considers the surgical treatments for the common elbow pathologies in the elderly population, including the potential complications associated with such treatments.

Arthrofibrosis After Periarticular Fracture Fixation

Arthrofibrosis after periarticular fractures can create clinically significant impairments in both the upper and lower extremities. The shoulder, elbow, and knee are particularly susceptible to the condition. Many risk factors for the development of arthrofibrosis cannot be controlled by the patient or surgeon. Early postoperative motion should be promoted whenever possible. Manipulations under anesthesia are effective for a period of time in certain fracture patterns, and open or arthroscopic surgical debridements should be reserved for the patient for whom nonoperative modalities fail and who has a clinically significant deficit.

Conservative management of the post-traumatic stiff elbow: a physiotherapist's perspective

Elbow stiffness is a common consequence following trauma with the management of this condition posing a challenge to therapists and surgeons alike. This paper discusses the role of conservative treatment, such as exercise and splinting, in the prevention and management of the stiff elbow, along with a review of available evidence, to justify their usage.