Elbow arthroscopy: the basics

Emergency department utilization after elbow arthroscopy

Background

Elbow arthroscopy has defined indications for which technical pearls and outcomes have been described. However, other aspects of the postoperative course, such as postprocedural emergency department (ED) visits, have received less attention. The current study defined the incidence and factors associated with ED visits in the 90 days following elbow arthroscopy by leveraging a large, national, multiinsurance, administrative database.

Methods

Adult patients who underwent elective elbow arthroscopy were identified in the 2010 to Q1 2022 PearlDiver Mariner161 national administrative database. Those who visited the ED in the 90 days following surgery were identified and compared to those who did not based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, geographic region of the United States, and insurance type by multivariate analyses. The timing (weeks following surgery), reasons for ED visit (elbow-related or not), and ED-to-hospital admission (presence or absence) were also assessed. Finally, the rate of those who were admitted during an ED visit was described.

Results

A total of 16,310 elbow arthroscopy patients were identified, of which ED visits in the 90 days following surgery were noted for 1086 (6.7%). ED visits were independently associated with younger age (odds ratio [OR, 95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.23 [1.17, 1.29] per decade decrease), higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (OR [95% CI]: 1.21 [1.19, 1.23] per 1-point increase), different geographic region (OR [95% CI]: 1.42 [1.19, 1.71] for Midwest relative to West), and insurance (OR [95% CI]: 1.88 [1.48, 2.39] for Medicaid relative to Commercial) (P < .001 for each). The incidence of all-cause ED visits was highest during the first two postoperative weeks and gradually decreased over the following weeks. The reason for ED visits related to the elbow decreased from 65% in month one, to 37.7% in month two, to 26.6% in month three. Of those visiting the ED, 12.4% went on to be admitted (for any reason).

Conclusion

A significant proportion of patients from a large cohort of elbow arthroscopy patients visited the ED at least once in the 90 days following surgery. The defined associated factors and timing of these ED visits can help optimize postoperative care pathways.

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.

Elbow arthroscopy - Indications and technique

Throughout the years, elbow arthroscopy has advanced tremendously due to improvements in technology and surgical techniques. It is now considered a safe and effective treatment for a variety of elbow disorders. Due to the small working space and nearby neurovascular structures, it is a technically challenging procedure. It can be used to successfully treat complaints caused by loose bodies, osteoarthritis, arthrofibrosis, OCD, lateral epicondylitis, VEOS and fractures. The most devastating complication of elbow arthroscopy is (permanent) nerve injury. Therefore, distortion of the anatomy of the elbow joint and transposition of the ulnar nerve can be a contra-indication for elbow arthroscopy due to the higher risk of postoperative complications. The results of the arthroscopy depend on the experience, knowledge, technique and expertise of the performing surgeon.

The Needle-and-Knife Technique: A Safe Technique for Anterolateral Portal Placement in Elbow Arthroscopy

Background:

Safe and effective portal placement is crucial for successful elbow arthroscopy. Various techniques for anterolateral portal placement in elbow arthroscopy have been described, yet radial nerve injuries are commonly reported.

Purpose:

To report on the technique and safety of anterolateral portal placement by the needle-and-knife method and its clinical applications.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A retrospective review was completed of patients who underwent an arthroscopic procedure in the anterior compartment of the elbow and anterolateral portal placement. Patients were evaluated immediately postoperatively and at subsequent visits and were monitored for signs of radial nerve injury.

Results:

A total of 460 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 309 (67%) underwent the needle-and-knife technique. There was 1 case (0.3%) of temporary radial nerve palsy. For the remaining 151 patients who underwent anterolateral portal placement by other techniques, there were 2 cases of temporary radial nerve palsy (1.3%). There were no cases of the needle-and-knife technique being unsuccessful or abandoned in lieu of a different technique. Use of the needle-and-knife technique increased over time with experience and practice. Initially, contraindications to this technique included impaired view of the lateral side of the anterior compartment of the elbow caused by severe intra-articular scar (65%), extensive synovitis (10%), or large osteophytes or loose bodies (10%). For the remaining patients (15%) who did not have portals placed via the needle-and-knife technique, alternate techniques were used for teaching purposes.

Conclusion:

The needle-and-knife technique is reproducible and easy to perform by a clinician instructed in its use and trained in elbow arthroscopy. Its main advantage is that it permits the surgeon to safely slide the knife along the lateral supracondylar ridge, releasing the scarred capsule and thereby increasing the available space in which to work. Enlarging the working space inside scarred and contracted elbows cannot be accomplished by distending the capsule.

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

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors associated with peripheral nerve injury after elbow arthroscopy and provide an updated incidence of those complications.

METHODS

The elbow arthroscopies that were performed at our institution between 2006 and 2016 were identified. Over a 10-year period, 253 elbow arthroscopies were performed at our institution. Two hundred twenty-seven cases had a minimum follow-up of 4 weeks, and were included in our analysis. Minor and major nerve-related complications were recorded. The surgeon's experience and training, body max index of the patients, surgical tourniquet time, type of anesthesia or surgery, radiographic appearance of the elbow, diagnosis at the time of surgery, and presence of diabetes were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 12 reported peripheral nerve injuries, 10 minor (4.4%) and 2 major complications (0.9%). The risk factors examined in this study were not correlated with a higher rate of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The minor nerve-related complication rate was 4.4%, with a 0.9% incidence of major peripheral nerve injury. Based on these findings, we conclude that elbow arthroscopy is a relatively safe procedure. The risk factors examined in this study had no association with the rate of complications. This finding could be potentially related to type II or beta error in the analysis of risk factors for nerve injury. The exact reasons for nerve injury are not known from this study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

A Novel Method of Patient Positioning Using Shoulder Arthroscopy Equipment for Elbow Arthroscopy

Indications for elbow arthroscopy are expanding; however, it is uncommon compared with shoulder arthroscopy. Elbow arthroscopy can be complicated by positioning, including the need to obtain specific arm holders required by most operating rooms. Surgery can be performed in the supine, prone, or lateral position. Arm traction allows for distraction of the joint space, full insufflation, and therefore visualization of intra-articular anatomy. This article outlines a new technique using previously available shoulder arthroscopy equipment to avoid increased cost incurred by procuring new, elbow-specific equipment. This technique is performed in the supine position using a hydraulic system and a shoulder 3-point distractor. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(1):e158-e160.].

Modified Anterolateral Portals in Elbow Arthroscopy: A Cadaveric Study on Safety

PURPOSE

To evaluate the proximity to the radial nerve on cadaveric specimens of 2 modified anterolateral portals used for elbow arthroscopy.

METHODS

Ten fresh cadaveric elbow specimens were prepared. Four-millimeter Steinman pins were inserted into 3 anterolateral portal sites in relation to the lateral epicondyle: (1) the standard distal anterolateral portal, (2) a modified direct anterolateral portal, and (3) a modified proximal anterolateral portal. These were defined as follows: direct portals 2 cm directly anterior to the lateral epicondyle, and proximal portals 2 cm proximal and 2 cm directly anterior to the lateral epicondyle. Each elbow was then dissected to reveal the course of the radial nerve. Digital photographs were taken of each specimen, and the distance from the Steinman pin to the radial nerve was measured.

RESULTS

The modified proximal anterolateral and direct anterolateral portals were found to be a statistically significant distance from the radial nerve compare to the distal portal site (P = .011 and P = .0011, respectively). No significant difference was found in the proximity of the radial nerve between the modified proximal and direct anterolateral portals (P = .25). Inadequate imaging was found at a single portal site for the proximal site; 9 specimens were used for analysis of this portal with 10 complete specimens for the other 2 sites.

CONCLUSIONS

In cadaveric analysis, both the modified proximal and direct lateral portals provide adequate distance from the radial nerve and may be safe for clinical use. In this study, the distal anterolateral portal was in close proximity of the radial nerve and may result in iatrogenic injury in the clinical setting.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This is a cadaveric analysis of 2 modified portal locations at the anterolateral elbow for use in elbow arthroscopy. Further clinical studies are needed prior to determining their absolute safety in comparison to previously identified portal sites.

Arthroscopic Management of Elbow Osteoarthritis

The incidence of osteoarthritis in the general population is low, but it can be seen in manual laborers, throwing athletes, and people dependent on crutches and wheelchairs. Patients often complain of pain at the terminal extents of motion, and imaging shows osteophyte formation at the tips of the coronoid and olecranon processes as well as thickening of the bone between the coronoid and the olecranon fossae. Recent advances in arthroscopic instrumentation and techniques have led to a growing interest in the arthroscopic treatment of elbow osteoarthritis. This article provides a review of basic arthroscopic elbow anatomy and the most common procedures, including diagnostic arthroscopy, loose body removal, and arthroscopic osteocapsular and ulnohumeral arthroplasty. As techniques advance, there might be interest in further procedures including arthroscopic-assisted interpositional arthroplasty. Although complications such as persistent drainage and nerve injury are frequently mentioned with elbow arthroscopy, the actual incidence of such complications remains low.

Quantification of the articular view of the elbow afforded by standard portals using 30° arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The present study quantifies the field of view (FOV) from standard arthroscopy portals and aims to identify anatomical regions where the FOV is limited.

METHODS

Eleven cadaveric elbows were examined through standard anteromedial, anterolateral and posterior portals. The FOV was marked with dye using a spinal needle. The articular surfaces were then exposed and the percentage FOV seen was calculated. FOV percentage areas were compared using a Student's t-test (JMP, version 10, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) FOV percentage area seen from the anteromedial portal and anterolateral portal was 91.69% (3.63%) and 92.03% (3.93%), respectively, for the anterior humerus articular surface. There was no significant difference in the mean FOV percentage area seen from the anteromedial and anterolateral portals (p = 0.99). The mean (SD) FOV percentage area of the posterior humerus articular surface was 84.69% (2.28%). The mean (SD) FOV percentage area seen of the radial head and trochlear was 16.05% (2.66%) and 4.14% (1.76%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study is the first to quantify the FOV of elbow arthroscopy. The majority of the anterior and posterior humerus articular surface can be seen through standard portals. The limitations in FOV are primarily confined to the radial head and trochlear notch.

An Anatomic Evaluation of Arthroscopic Access to the Radial Head

PURPOSE

To determine the area of the radial head accessible for visualization and screw placement from the standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals used in elbow arthroscopy.

METHODS

Five cadaveric elbows were arthroscopically evaluated using standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals. Markers (pins) were placed into the accessible portions of the radial head at maximal pronation and supination. Specimens were then evaluated by computed tomography, and the arc of the radial head accessible from each portal was determined.

RESULTS

A continuous 220.04° ± 37.58° arc of the radial head was accessible from the combination of the anterolateral and anteromedial portals. From the anteromedial portal, the arc obtained measured 147.96° ± 21.81°, and from the anterolateral portal, the arc obtained measured 156.02° ± 33.32°. Using the radial styloid as a marker for 0°, the mean total arc ranged from 92.3° ± 34.06° dorsal to 127.74° ± 23.65° volar relative to the radial styloid.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals used for elbow arthroscopy allow access to an average 220° area of the radial head.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study defines the area of the radial head that can be contacted using commonly used, safe, and simple portals.

Elbow arthroscopy: An alternative to anteromedial portals

BACKGROUND

Elbow arthroscopy is considered to be a difficult procedure with a high complication rate. These two disadvantages are due to the proximity of neurovascular structures.

HYPOTHESIS

The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and complication rate of a new elbow arthroscopy technique without anteromedial portals. This approach was taken because of the high rate of ulnar nerve damage using the medial portal, and the difficulty of performing triangulation of opposite portals in a patient in the lateral decubitus position.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifteen patients were operated on by the same surgeon between 2010 and 2012. Range of motion and the "MEPS" elbow score were calculated preoperatively and at the final postoperative follow-up. The average age of patients was 38.3 years. The follow-up was 11.1 months. Personal portals (high anterolateral and intermediate anterolateral portals) were used instead of the anteromedial portals.

RESULTS

Elbow flexion increased from 113° preoperatively to 129° at the final follow-up (P=0.009). Extension increased from -33° to -10° (P<0.0001). The preoperative and final postoperative "MEPS" scores were 56.3 and 94 respectively (P<0.0001). Two patients (13.3%) had radial nerve palsy with complete recovery 6 and 9 months after surgery.

DISCUSSION

The rate of nerve complications following elbow arthroscopy varies from 0 to 14%. The rate in our series (13.3%) is comparable to the results of the literature. This rate should be placed in perspective (since one patient had multiple open surgery elbow operations before arthroscopy). All complications were transient. Improved elbow range of motion in our study is consistent with the results in literature.