Peripheral Nerve Injury After Elbow Arthroscopy: An Analysis of Risk Factors

Wide Range in Complication Rates Following Elbow Arthroscopy in Adult and Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of complications associated with elbow arthroscopy in adults and children.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting complications or reoperations after elbow arthroscopy with at least 5 patients were included. Based on the Nelson classification, the severity of complications was categorized as minor or major. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized trials were assessed using the Methodological Items for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool.

RESULT

A total of 114 articles were included with 18,892 arthroscopies (16,815 patients). A low risk of bias was seen for the randomized studies and a fair quality for the nonrandomized studies. Complication rates ranged from 0% to 71% (median 3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8%-3.3%), and reoperation rates from 0% to 59% (median 2%; 95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%). A total of 906 complications were observed, with transient nerve palsies (31%) as the most frequent complication. According to Nelson classification, 735 (81%) complications were minor and 171 (19%) major. Forty-nine studies reported complications in adults and 10 studies in children, showing a complication rate ranging from 0% to 27% (median 0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.4%) and 0% to 57% (median 1%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.5%), respectively. A total of 125 complications were observed in adults, with transient nerve palsies (23%) as the most frequent complication, and 33 in children, with loose bodies after surgery (45%) as the most frequent complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Predominantly low-level evidence studies demonstrate varying complication rates (median 3%, range 0%-71%) and reoperation rates (median 2%, range 0%-59%) after elbow arthroscopy. Higher complication rates are observed after more complex surgery. The incidence and type of complications can aid surgeons in patient counseling and refining surgical techniques to further reduce the complication rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

Editorial Commentary: Avoiding Complications in Elbow Arthroscopy: Know the Indications, Learn the Anatomy, and Master a Safe Technique

Elbow arthroscopy enables surgeons to treat a vast range of elbow injuries and pathologies in a minimally invasive manner. It has a lower morbidity rate and is often followed by a faster recovery than traditional open surgery unless it is followed by a serious complication. Although most complications are minor and transient, the incidence of both minor and major complications is considerably higher than that after arthroscopy of other joints, specifically the risk of neurovascular injury including permanent nerve injury because of the proximity of neurovascular structures. A recent review of 114 studies reported a median 3% incidence of complications and 2% incidence of reoperation, with transient nerve palsies accounting for about one third. Surgeon experience may influence complication rates; a survey suggested that surgeons need to experience more than 200 cases to be considered expert. In addition, patient-related factors such as obesity, female gender, age over 65 years, elevated blood sugar levels, hypercoagulable disorder, tobacco or alcohol use or both, as well as history of previous surgery and perioperative corticosteroid injections are identified as risk factors for complications after elbow arthroscopy. Keys to avoiding complications include precise surgical indications and understanding the 3-dimensional anatomy-especially the relationship of the various nerves to the portals and joint capsule.

Risk of nerve injury during elbow arthroscopy: ultrasonographic evaluation of preoperative patients

BACKGROUND

To clarify the real risk of nerve injury during elbow arthroscopy, the distances of the radial and median nerves to the elbow joint were investigated using ultrasonography in patients who underwent surgery.

METHODS

A total of 35 patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery of the elbow were investigated. The distances of the nerves to the capsule and bony landmarks were measured using ultrasonography. The radial nerve distances were measured at the capitellum, joint space, radial head, and radial neck levels. The median nerve distances were measured at the trochlear, joint space, and coronoid process levels. The patients were divided into 2 groups: nine patients in the hydrarthrosis (HA) group and 26 patients in the non-hydrarthrosis (non-HA) group. HA was defined as the intra-articular effusion on magnetic resonance imaging scans.

RESULTS

The radial nerve ran closer to the capsule at the radial neck level in the HA group than in the non-HA group (2.0 mm vs. 5.9 mm, P < .01). In the non-HA group, the radial nerve ran closer to the radial head than in the HA group (6.3 mm vs. 8.5 mm, P = .01). The median nerve ran closer to the capsule at the trochlear level in the HA group than in the non-HA group (5.2 mm vs. 8.8 mm, P < .01). Nerves at a distance of ≤2 mm from the capsule were found in 7 patients at the radial neck of the radial nerve and in 2 patients at the trochlear region of the median nerve in the HA group. In the non-HA group, they were found in 3 patients at the radial head and in 1 patient at the joint space of the radial nerve.

CONCLUSIONS

The dangerous locations for nerve injury during elbow arthroscopy vary according to hydrarthrosis, and this risk should be recognized during arthroscopic surgery.

Application of ultrasound in avoiding radial nerve injury during elbow arthroscopy: a retrospective follow-up study

BACKGROUND

A safe and effective technique for anterolateral portal placement in elbow arthroscopy is significant. We compared the outcomes of patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy using different ultrasound-assisted techniques.

METHODS

From May 2016 to June 2021 a retrospective analysis on all patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy in our department was performed. Patients were separated into three groups: non-ultrasound; preoperative ultrasound; and intraoperative ultrasound. The minimum follow-up period was 1 year. Nerve injuries, visual analog scale (VAS), Mayo elbow-performance score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), and range of motion (ROM) of the elbow were evaluated for comparison among the three groups pre- and post-operatively.

RESULTS

All 55 patients completed a 1-year follow-up: non-ultrasound (n = 20); preoperative ultrasound (n = 17); and intraoperative ultrasound (n = 18). There were 3 cases (15.0%) of transient radial nerve palsy in the non-ultrasound group. No nerve complications occurred in preoperative ultrasound and intraoperative ultrasound groups. The probability of postoperative radial nerve injury in the three groups was statistically different (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score, MEPS, DASH score, and ROM among the three groups at the follow-up evaluation (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Performing anterolateral portal placement during elbow arthroscopy with ultrasound-assisted techniques successfully avoided radial nerve injury.

Complications of Elbow Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Elbow arthroscopic surgery has been popularized and has made significant progress during the past 3 decades. The elbow joint is relatively small and is in close proximity to many neurovascular structures. These factors make elbow arthroscopic surgery technically demanding and liable to complications.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the rate of complications after elbow arthroscopic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to July 2021. All clinical studies that reported complications after elbow arthroscopic surgery were included; a total of 1208 articles were initially found. Case reports, reviews, abstracts, imaging studies, technique studies, nonclinical studies, and those not reporting postoperative complications were excluded. Complication rates were pooled across studies and reported as percentages. Complications were expressed as weighted proportions with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 95 studies (14,289 elbows) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall weighted complication rate was 11.0% (95% CI, 8.8%-13.5%), with postoperative stiffness being the most commonly encountered complication (4.5% [95% CI, 2.1%-7.6%]; 158/8818 procedures). The second most encountered complication was the need for subsequent surgery with a weighted proportion of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.6%; 177/8853 procedures) followed by nerve injury with a weighted proportion of 3.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-4.3%; 267/13,725 procedures). The ulnar nerve was the most commonly injured nerve (2.6% [95% CI, 1.9%-3.4%]; 123/6290 procedures).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that elbow arthroscopic surgery is a relatively safe procedure with low complication rates.

Neurological Complications Following Arthroscopic and Related Sports Surgery: Prevention, Work-up, and Treatment

Arthroscopy of the shoulder, elbow, hip, and knee has become increasingly utilized due to continued advancements in technique, training, and instrumentation. In addition, arthroscopy is generally safe and effective in the utilization of joint preservation surgical techniques. The arthroscopist must utilize a thorough understanding of the surgical anatomy, detailed care with patient positioning, and safe instrumentation portals to prevent associated neurological injury. In the event of postoperative neurological complications, the physician must carefully document the patient history and physical examination while considering the utilization of additional imaging, testing, or surgical nerve exploration with a specialized team depending upon the severity of neurological injury. In this review, we discuss the prevention, evaluation, and treatment of neurological complications related for arthroscopic procedures of the shoulder, elbow, hip, and knee.

Complications in Elbow Arthroscopy: Management and Prevention

With advances in the understanding of elbow anatomy, pathologies of the elbow, arthroscopic instrumentation, and surgical techniques over recent decades, elbow arthroscopy has become a valuable treatment modality for a variety of conditions. Elbow arthroscopy has gained utility for treating problems such as septic arthritis, osteoarthritis, synovitis, osteophyte and loose body excision, contracture release, osteochondral defects, select fractures, instability, and lateral epicondylitis. Accordingly, precise knowledge of the neurovascular anatomy, safe arthroscopic portal placement, indications, and potential complications are required to maximize patient outcomes and assist in educating patients. This comprehensive review provides the reader an understanding of the potential complications associated with arthroscopic procedures of the elbow and to describe strategies for prevention and management.

A systematic review of elbow arthroscopy complications : Complications, risk factors, and safety tips

PURPOSE

To determine the complications from elbow arthroscopy for the past 16 years, and to summarize the most reported safety techniques and risk factors.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria included level I to IV evidence articles that were published after 2005 in the English language. Excluded were vet, paediatric, and cadaver studies. Open and arthroscopic-assisted elbow procedures were not included. Two online databases were comprehensively searched (PubMed and PMC) in April 2021. Relevant paper selection was conducted by two independent reviewers. MINORS score, demographic properties, indications, procedure type, complication rates, reoperation rates, reported risk factors, and safety techniques were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-two articles met the criteria and were included. No relevant level I to II evidence studies were discovered. The mean age ranged from 31 to 65 years. The average body mass indexes were between 26 and over 40 kg/m². There was a prevalence of male sex (from 50.2 to 79.2%). Most of the studies reported a minimum follow-up (range, 4 weeks-12 months). The most common arthroscopic procedure was debridement (up to 73% in Leong et al.'s study). The average MINORS score was 12 (range, 10-16). The total complications rate ranged from 1.5 to 11%, with a few studies reporting over 25%. Nerve injury rate was 1.26-7.5%. Re-operation rate ranged from none (100 procedures) to 11.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Elbow arthroscopy is a successful procedure with a low overall complications rate (from 1.5 to 11%), and a low nerve injury rate (from 1.26 to 7.5%). Risk factors include patient-related factors (obesity, female sex, age over 65 years, elevated blood sugar levels, hypercoagulable disorder, tobacco and alcohol use), preoperative elbow impairment/previous surgery, and periprocedural steroid injections. Our review discovered a re-operation rate of 2 to 18%.

Nerve lesions during arthroscopic procedure: a literature overview

Arthroscopy is more and more popular. Although minimally-invasive, it's not completely free of complications as nerves lesions which can be invalidating for the patient and frustrating for the surgeon with significant economic, psychological and medico-legal implications. The purpose was to review the literature about nerve injuries related to arthroscopy. A scientific literature review was performed in PubMed/Medline, including articles dealing with cases of iatrogen lesions of the peripheral nerves occurred during arthroscopic procedures. These lesions are mainly due to direct damage by nerve section while cutting for making the portals or during surgical maneuvers, or indirect damage due to traction or pressure mechanisms especially for errors in patient positioning. Also the tourniquet can lead to compression and ischemic nerve injury. Arthroscopy can cause both transient and permanent neurological lesions manifested with dysesthesia up to paralysis according to Seddon's classification in neuroapraxia, axonotmesis and neurotmesis. Incidence of complications in general and of nerve injuries during arthroscopy are reported by joint. A rigorous respect for surgical technique and all perioperative precautions, particularly in relation to the positioning of the patient, greatly reduce the risk of nerve injury. The suggested waiting time before surgical nerve revision is 6 months. In the meanwhile the patient should perform physiotherapy constantly and improvements should be evaluated with clinical examination and electromyography 15-20 days after the lesion, and thereafter at 3 and 6 months.

Heterotopic Ossification after Arthroscopic Elbow Release

Objectives

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of heterotopic ossification (HO) after arthroscopic elbow release.

Methods

The present study included 101 elbows, with arthroscopic release performed on 98 patients over the 5‐year period from November 2011 to December 2015. Patients were divided into three groups: group 1, with elbow arthritis, including 46 elbows in 43 patients; group 2, with posttraumatic extrinsic elbow stiffness (without intraarticular adhesion), including 23 elbows in 23 patients; and group 3, with intrinsic contractures (with intraarticular adhesion), including 32 elbows in 32 patients. Arthroscopic elbow release was performed under general anesthesia. For intrinsic stiffness, a radiofrequency device was applied to release intraarticular scar tissue and create work space, which was rarely necessary in groups 1 and 2. In the postoperative period, X‐rays and CT scans were assessed at follow up to determine if there was HO formation, which was diagnosed when new calcifications were identified. The functional recovery was evaluated by comparing the range of motion (ROM) and pain relief preoperativley and postoperatively in each group. Other complications were also assessed postoperatively.

Results

The patients’ mean age was 38.6 years (range, 12–66), with 57 males and 41 females. Mean follow‐up was 21 months (range, 4–56). The active ROM and Mayo elbow performance index (MEPS) were improved from 93° ± 8.3° to 126° ± 12.4° (P < 0.05) and 71.4 ± 7.6 to 91.3 ± 8.7 (P < 0.001) in group 1, 66° ± 10.3° to 121° ± 10.7° (P < 0.005) and 65.6 ± 9.2 to 93.5 ± 11.2 (P < 0.05) in group 2, and 46° ± 6.7° to 91° ± 11.1° (P < 0.001) and 52.3 ± 6.4 to 80.6 ± 9.4 (P < 0.005) in group 3. HO developed in 25/101 cases (25%) and 4 patients with severe cases underwent repeat surgery. Those in group 1 were primarily arthritis patients; there were 3 out 46 cases with minor HO evident on X‐ray. In group 2, 1/23 had minor HO. In group 3, 21/32 patients had HO; 4 cases were considered severe, 4 were considered moderate, and 13 were considered minor. The average flexion–extension arc was improved by 47° at the last follow up. Other postoperative complications included 8 cases of prolonged drainage from portal sites, 17 transient nerve palsies, 1 permanent radial nerve injury, and 1 patient who developed delayed‐onset ulnar neuritis. This patient was fully recovered 5 months after surgery.

Conclusions

The high incidence of HO formation after arthroscopic elbow release may relate to improper application of a radiofrequency device. Minimizing thermal injury from these radiofrequency devices could reduce HO formation and improve postoperative functional recovery.

Arthroscopic localization of the ulnar nerve behind the medial capsule is unreliable

Purpose

Ulnar nerve injury is the most common neurologic complication of elbow arthroscopy. The purpose of this cadaveric study was to quantify the ability of surgeons to locate the ulnar nerve behind the posteromedial capsule during elbow arthroscopy using sole arthroscopic vision.

Methods

Twenty-one surgeons were asked to pin the ulnar nerve at the medial gutter and the posteromedial compartment using arthroscopic visualization of the medial capsule only. Pinning of the ulnar nerve was performed from extra-articular. Then, the cadaveric specimens were dissected and the shortest distances between the pins and ulnar nerve measured.

Results

Median pin-to-nerve distances at the medial gutter and posteromedial compartment were 0 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 0-3 mm) and 2 mm (IQR, 0-6 mm), respectively. The ulnar nerve was pinned by 11/21 surgeons (52%) at the medial gutter, and 7/21 surgeons (33%) at the posteromedial compartment. Three of 21 surgeons (14%) pinned the ulnar nerve at both the medial gutter and the posteromedial compartment. Surgeon's experience and operation volume did not affect these outcomes (P > .05).

Conclusions

Surgeons' ability to locate the ulnar nerve behind the posteromedial capsule using sole arthroscopic visualization, without external palpation, is poor. We recommend to proceed carefully when performing arthroscopic procedures in the posteromedial elbow, and identify and mobilize the ulnar nerve prior to any posteromedial capsular procedures.

Editorial Commentary: Elbow Arthroscopy Is a Safe Procedure. Sure

Elbow arthroscopy is a procedure that is of great potential use and yet also of grave potential risks. To balance the risk-versus-reward consideration, one must be aware of the potential complications associated with this procedure, weigh them against the potential advantages, and understand one's own skills and familiarity with the procedure. There is no doubt that elbow arthroscopy has changed and even revolutionized our management of pathology about the elbow; however, one must bear in mind that this comes at a risk of complications that cannot be reduced to zero.

Complications of Elbow Arthroscopy in a Community-Based Practice

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to report the complications of elbow arthroscopy in a large community practice with multiple surgeons and to analyze potential risk factors for these complications.

METHODS

Patient demographic information, surgical variables, surgeon variables, and complications were retrospectively reviewed for all elbow arthroscopies performed within the health network from 2006 to 2014. Inclusion criteria included patients of any age undergoing a primary and revision elbow arthroscopy, which may have been performed in conjunction with other procedures. Exclusion criteria included incorrectly coded procedures where arthroscopy was not performed and no postoperative follow-up. Statistical calculations were performed using a binary logistic regression analysis to fit a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

560 consecutive elbow arthroscopies in 528 patients performed between 2006 and 2014, by 42 surgeons at 14 facilities, were reviewed. 113 procedures were performed in pediatric patients under the age of 18. The average age was 38.6 years (range: 5-88). There were 444 males. The average length of follow-up was 375.8 days (2 to 2,739 days). Overall, heterotopic ossification occurred in 14 of 560 cases (2.5%) (all males), and 20 of 560 (3.5%) cases developed transient nerve palsies (8 ulnar, 8 radial, 1 median, 3 medial antebrachial cutaneous). There were 3 (0.5%) deep and 11 (2%) superficial infections. There were no vascular injuries, compartment syndrome, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism. Elevated blood sugar was a significantly higher risk for infection (odds ratio [OR] 4.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.337 to 12.645; P = .0136). Previous elbow surgery (OR 3.57, 95% CI 1.440 to 8.938; P = .006) and female sex (OR 4.05; 95% CI 1.642 to 9.970; P = .002) had a significantly higher risk for nerve injury. Relative to pediatric patients, there were higher odds in adults for nerve injury, infection, and heterotopic ossification, but none reached significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Elbow arthroscopy is a safe procedure with low complication rates. Diabetes is a risk factor for infection. Prior surgery and female sex are risk factors for nerve injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, level 4.

The posterior interosseous nerve crosses the radial head midline and increases its distance from bony structures with supination of the forearm

BACKGROUND

This study investigated whether forearm movements change the relative position of the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) with respect to the midline of the radial head (Rh) under direct arthroscopic observation.

METHODS

The PIN was identified in 10 fresh frozen cadaveric specimens dissected under arthroscopy. The forearm was moved first in full pronation and then in full supination, and the displacement of the PIN from medial to lateral with respect to the midline of the Rh was recorded. The shortest linear distance between the nerve and the most anterior part of the Rh was measured with a graduated calliper inserted via the midlateral portal with the forearm in neutral position, full pronation, and full supination.

RESULTS

The PIN was identifiable in all specimens. In all cases the PIN crossed the Rh midline with forearm movements, moving from medial in full pronation to lateral in full supination. The distance between the PIN and Rh is significantly greater in supination than in the neutral position and pronation (P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that the PIN movement described in open surgery (medialization with pronation) also occurs during arthroscopy. The role of pronation in protecting the PIN in extra-articularprocedures is therefore confirmed. Supination, however, increases the linear distance between the PIN and Rh and should therefore be considered to increase the safe working volume whenever intra-articular procedures are performed on the anterolateral aspect of the elbow.

Locating the ulnar nerve during elbow arthroscopy using palpation is only accurate proximal to the medial epicondyle

PURPOSE

Knowledge of ulnar nerve position is of utmost importance to avoid iatrogenic injury in elbow arthroscopy. The aim of this study was to determine how accurate surgeons are in locating the ulnar nerve after fluid extravasation has already occurred, and basing their localization solely on palpation of anatomical landmarks.

METHODS

Seven cadaveric elbows were used and seven experienced surgeons in elbow arthroscopy participated. An arthroscopic setting was simulated and fluids were pumped into the joint from the posterior compartment for 15 min. For each cadaveric elbow, one surgeon was asked to locate the ulnar nerve solely by palpation of the anatomical landmarks, and subsequently pin the ulnar nerve at two positions: within 5 cm proximal and another within 5 cm distal of a line connecting the medial epicondyle and the tip of the olecranon. Subsequently, the elbows were dissected using a standard medial elbow approach and the distances between the pins and ulnar nerve were measured.

RESULTS

The median distance between the ulnar nerve and the proximal pins was 0 mm (range 0-0 mm), and between the ulnar nerve and the distal pins was 2 mm (range 0-10 mm), showing a statistically significant difference (p = 0.009). All seven proximally placed pins (100%) transfixed the ulnar nerve versus two out of seven distally placed pins (29%) (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

In a setting simulating an already initiated arthroscopic procedure, the sole palpation of the anatomical landmarks allows experienced elbow surgeons to accurately locate the ulnar nerve only in its course proximal to the medial epicondyle (7/7, 100%), whereas a significantly reduced accuracy is documented when the same surgeons attempt to locate the nerve distal to the medial epicondyle (2/7, 29%; p = 0.021). Current findings support the establishment of a proximal anteromedial portal over a distal anteromedial portal to access the anterior compartment after tissue extravasation has occurred with regard to ulnar nerve safety.

Editorial Commentary: Volition, Fear, and Faith: Elbow Arthroscopy and Nerve Injury

We strive to understand and present accurate risk assessment of transient and major nerve injuries to maintain our patients' faith as we choose to proceed with elbow arthroscopy. Our arthroscopic training, experience, and volume as well as patient obesity, osteoarthritis, and joint contracture should guide our decisions of which complex cases to expose our patients.