Treatment of unstable elbow dislocations with hinged elbow fixation-subjective and objective results

Safety and effectiveness of the three-dimensional-printed guide plate-assisted rotation axis positioning of a hinged external fixator for the elbow

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of three-dimensional (3D)-printed guide plates for assisting in the positioning of the rotation axis of an elbow-hinged external fixator.

METHODS

Terrible triad (TT) patients, who were screened using the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, underwent installation of a hinged external fixator on the basis of internal fixation; 3D-printed guide plates, generated from the patient's imaging data, assisted in positioning the rotation axis. All patients received the same peri-operative management and were followed up at six, 12, 24, and 48 weeks postoperatively. The duration of positioning pin placement, the number of fluoroscopies, pin placement success rate, types and incidence of post-operative complications, and the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) of the diseased elbow and range of motion (ROM) of both elbows were assessed.

RESULTS

In 25 patients who completed the follow-up, the average time required for positioning pin placement was 329.32 ± 42.38 s (263-443 s), the average number of fluoroscopies was 2.32 ± 0.48 times (2-3 times), and the pin placement success rate was 100%. At the last follow-up, the mean MEPS of the diseased elbow was 97.50 ± 6.92 (75-100), with an excellent and good rate of 100%, and all patients demonstrated stable concentric reduction. The average range of flexion and extension was 135.08° ± 17.10° (77-146°), while the average range of rotation was 169.21° ± 18.14° (108-180°). No significant difference was observed in the average ROM between the both elbows (P > 0.05). Eight (32%) patients developed post-operative complications, including elbow stiffness due to heterotopic ossification in three (12%) patients, all of whom did not require secondary intervention.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing 3D-printed guide plates for positioning the rotation axis of an elbow-hinged external fixator significantly reduced intra-operative positioning pin placement time and the number of fluoroscopies with excellent positioning results. Satisfactory results were also obtained in terms of post-operative complications, elbow ROM, and functional scores.

Comparing internal and external stabilization for traumatic elbow instability: a systematic review

Background

Despite surgical reestablishment of the supporting structures, instability may often persist in traumatic elbow injury. In these cases, a temporary internal or external fixator may be indicated to unload the repaired structures and maintain joint concentricity. Aggregate data are needed to characterize the risk of complication between external fixation (ExFix) and the internal joint stabilizer (IJS) when used for traumatic elbow instability. Our objective was to review the literature to compare the complication profile between external fixation and the IJS.

Methods

A database query was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome characteristics for eligibility were the following: for patients over 18 years clinical outcomes were compared between an ExFix or the IJS for acute or chronic elbow instability. The Cochran risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions and grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation framework were compiled for risk of bias and quality assessment.

Results

The rate of recurrent instability was 4.1% in the IJS group (N = 171) and 7.0% in the ExFix group (N = 435), with an odds ratio of 1.93 (95% confidence interval 0.88-4.23). The rate of device failure was 4.4% in the IJS group and 4.1% in the ExFix group. Pin-related complications occurred in 14.6% of ExFix cases. Complications in the IJS group were the following: 1 case of inflammatory reaction, 4 cases of post removal surgical site infection, and 5 symptomatic removals.

Discussion

The literature demonstrates a distinct difference in complication profile between external fixation and the IJS when used as treatment for traumatic elbow instability. Although not statistically significant, the higher rate of recurrent instability following external fixation may be clinically important. The high rate of pin-related complications with external fixation is notable.

Treatment Outcomes of Simple Elbow Dislocations: A Systematic Review of 1,081 Cases

BACKGROUND

The treatment of simple elbow dislocations (SEDs) has become more functional last decade with a tendency to shorter immobilization of the elbow, whereas simultaneously, surgical stabilization has been promoted by some authors. The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and analyze the outcomes and complications of different treatment options for acute and persistent SEDs, including operative and nonoperative treatments with varying immobilization periods.

METHODS

A literature search was performed based on the online medical databases MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. Articles presenting patients with a SED were eligible for inclusion. When an SED persists for >3 weeks, it is categorized as persistent. Various outcome measures were assessed, including the range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcome measures, and complication rates. To get insight into the severity of complications, all complications were categorized as minor or major. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was used to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized studies. The risk of bias in the randomized studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 37 articles were included with 1,081 dislocated elbows (1,078 patients). A fair quality of evidence was seen for the nonrandomized studies and a low risk of bias for the randomized study. Nonoperative treatment was administered to 710 elbows, with 244 elbows treated with early mobilization, 239 with 1- to 3-week immobilization, and 163 with ≥3-week immobilization. These groups showed a ROM flexion-extension arc (ROM F/E) of 137, 129, and 131°, respectively. Surgical treatment as open reduction and ligament repair or reconstruction was performed in 228 elbows and showed a ROM F/E of 128°. All persistent SEDs were treated surgically and showed a ROM F/E of 90°.

CONCLUSION

The early mobilization treatment showed the most consistent satisfactory outcomes in the literature compared with the other treatment options. Nevertheless, there remains ambiguity regarding which patients would benefit more from surgery than nonoperative treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Internal Joint Stabilizer of the Elbow: A Systematic Review of the Clinical and Biomechanical Evidence

Purpose

The goal of surgical management for unstable elbow injuries is the restoration of joint concentricity and stability. After internal fixation, concerns may exist regarding instability or durability of the fixation construct. Historically, these scenarios were treated with options such as transarticular pinning or external fixation. Recently, an internal joint stabilizer (IJS) that allows postoperative mobilization was introduced. Our objective was to systematically review the literature to aggregate the clinical and biomechanical evidence for the IJS of the elbow.

Methods

A systematic review of the PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed, following the PRISMA guidelines. The search results were narrowed from 2015 through 2023 to coincide with the inception of the device being reviewed.

Results

A total of nine retrospective reports on the IJS (N = 171) cases at a mean follow-up of 10.8 months were included. The pooled rate of implant failure was 4.4%, and recurrent instability was 4.1%. Additionally, the we included seven case reports and two biomechanical reports.

Conclusions

The aggregate literature describes satisfactory clinical outcomes with low rates of recurrent instability and device failure for the IJS of the elbow. The limited biomechanical investigations conclude efficacy for stability profiles.

Clinical relevance

Across a spectrum of unstable elbow cases, the IJS prevented recurrent instability during the early postoperative period. Notably, the device requires an additional procedure for removal, and the long-term impact of the retained devices is currently unclear.

Comparison of direct surgical cost and outcomes for unstable elbow injuries: internal joint stabilizer versus external fixation

Background

Unstable elbow injuries sometimes require External fixation (ExF) or an Internal Joint Stabilizer (IJS) to maintain joint reduction. No studies have compared the clinical outcomes and surgical costs of these 2 treatment modalities. The purpose of this study was to determine whether clinical outcome and surgical encounter total direct costs (SETDCs) differ between ExF and IJS for unstable elbow injuries.

Methods

This retrospective study identified adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with unstable elbow injures treated by either an IJS or ExF between 2010 and 2019 at a single tertiary academic center. Patients postoperatively completed 3 patient-reported outcome measures (the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, the Mayo Elbow Performance score, and EQ-5D-DL). Postoperative range of motion was measured in all patients, and complications tallied. SETDCs were determined and compared between the 2 groups.

Results

A total of 23 patients were identified, with 12 in each group. Clinical and radiographic follow-up for the IJS group averaged 24 months and 6 months, respectively, and for the ExF group, 78 months and 5 months, respectively. The 2 groups had similar final range of motion, the Mayo Elbow Performance score, and 5Q-5D-5L scores; ExF patients had better the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores. IJS patients had fewer complications and were less likely to require additional surgery. The SETDCs were similar between the 2 groups, but the relative contributors to cost differed significantly between the groups.

Conclusions

Patients treated with an ExF or IJS had similar clinical outcomes, but complications and second surgeries were more likely in ExF patients. The overall SETDC was also similar for ExF and IJS, but relative contributions of the cost subcategories differed.

Outcomes of elbow fracture-dislocations treated with and without an Internal Joint Stabilizer of the Elbow (IJS-E): A retrospective cohort study

Background

The internal joint stabilizer of the elbow (IJS-E) adds to techniques for maintaining reduction of elbow fracture-dislocations while allowing early motion. Literature on this device is limited to small case series.

Methods

Retrospective comparison of function, motion and complications in patients who sustained elbow fracture-dislocations reconstructed with (30 patients) and without (34 patients) an IJS-E by a single surgeon. The minimum follow up was 10 weeks.

Results

The mean follow up was 16 ± 17 months. The mean final flexion arc did not differ between the two groups, however patients without an IJS achieved greater pronation. There were no differences in mean Mayo Elbow Performance, Quick-DASH and pain scores. Five patients (17%) underwent IJS-E removal. The rates of capsular releases for stiffness after 12 weeks and recurrent instability were similar.

Conclusions

The use of an IJS-E to supplement traditional repair of elbow fracture-dislocations does not appear to affect final function or motion, and appears to be effective in reducing the risk of recurrent instability in a group of patients deemed high risk. However, its use is weighed against a 17% rate of removal at early follow up and possibly inferior forearm rotation.

Level of Evidence

Retrospective Cohort study, Level 3.

[Augmented primary sutures "internal bracing" following ligamentous elbow dislocation]

OBJECTIVE

Aim of surgical treatment is the primary stabilization of the unstable elbow following a ligamentous elbow dislocation.

INDICATIONS

Ligamentous elbow dislocations are typically accompanied by injuries to the surrounding musculature and collateral ligaments of the elbow joint. Surgical treatment is indicated in case of failure of nonoperative therapy, i.e., when a dislocation can only be prevented in immobilization > 90° and pronation of the elbow or an active muscular centering of the elbow fails after 5-7 days.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Contraindications for a solely "internal bracing" augmented primary suture are generally in the case of accompanying bony injuries in elbow dislocations, extensive soft-tissue injuries, and septic arthritis of the elbow.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

The augmented primary suture of the elbow is performed using both a lateral (Kocher or Kaplan) and medial (FCU split) approach to the elbow. After reduction of the elbow, the collateral ligaments are first augmented with high-strength polyethylene suture and fixed in the distal humerus together with another high-strength polyethylene augmentation suture. The extensors and flexors are then fixed to the medial and lateral epicondyle, respectively, using suture anchors.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

The aim of the postoperative management is early functional exercise of the elbow. The elbow is placed in an elbow brace to avoid varus and valgus load.

RESULTS

Between August 2018 and January 2020, a total of 12 patients were treated with an augmented primary suture following unstable ligamentous elbow dislocation. After a mean follow-up of 14 ± 12.7 months, the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 98.5 points with a mean functional arc of 115°. None of the patients reported a recurrent dislocation or persistent instability of the elbow.

Prospective clinical results of an additive ligament bracing for stabilizing simple and complex elbow instabilities

INTRODUCTION

Ligament bracing augments ligament repair using a non-absorbable suture tape. Although biomechanically an increase in primary stability has been proven, there is a lack of clinical evidence. Purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical results of patients treated with ligament bracing due to primary elbow instability, including an analysis of complications. Furthermore, clinical results for patients treated with and without early functional mobilization were compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective case-series evaluated clinical and functional results from patients treated with ligament bracing due to primary elbow instability. Clinical outcome measures were range of motion (ROM) as well as objective and subjective elbow scores [Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS); Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH score)]. Stability was evaluated sonographically by humero-radial gapping under varus stress.

RESULTS

This study involved 34 patients treated with ligament bracing. After a mean follow-up of 12.9 months ROM was 112° ± 29, MEPS 88 ± 13 points, DASH 91 ± 11 points, and 84% were satisfied with their result. Lateral joint gapping was 2.4 mm. No significant difference was observed regarding a postoperative mobilization with and without limitations. Most common complication after ligament bracing was elbow stiffness including heterotopic ossifications in four patients (12%).

CONCLUSION

Operatively treated elbow instability with additional ligament bracing results in good clinical outcomes with high patient satisfaction and recovery of elbow stability. The high primary stability of the ligament bracing allows early functional mobilization without bracing, which facilitates postoperative rehabilitation. Elbow stiffness with heterotopic ossification seems to be a potential complication. Furthermore, the optimal tensioning of the ligament bracing remains challenging, including the risk of an over tensioning.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Unique indications for internal joint stabilizer for elbow instability

BACKGROUND

Treatment of elbow instability remains challenging despite advancements in surgical techniques. The objective of this study was to evaluate obesity, advanced age or frailty, and altered cognitive function (because of mental handicap, stroke, dementia, or traumatic brain injury) as unique indications for the use of the internal joint stabilizer (IJS) to augment surgical treatment of elbow instability.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of all patients 18 years and older with elbow instability who were managed with an IJS along with standard measures of care for their specific injury, such as fracture fixation and collateral ligament reconstruction. Patients were excluded if they did not have a minimum follow-up of 3 months. All patients were treated by a single shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained orthopedic traumatologist at an urban university-based level 1 trauma center.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were included in the study. Five patients were 60 years of age or older. Nine patients had a body mass index of 30 or greater. Five patients had a history of 1 or more cerebral insults or cognitive impairment. The majority of patients (21/22; 95%) regained elbow stability after the index surgery. At last follow-up, 14 of 22 patients (63%) regained a functional arc of motion, defined as at least 100° arc of motion, and 77% of patients had at least 90° of motion. Complications requiring revision surgery included culture-negative recurrent elbow instability (n = 1), deep infection (n = 1), and IJS failure without recurrent instability (n = 1). The IJS was removed in all 3 cases. Twelve patients underwent delayed IJS removal >2 months after the index surgery to grant additional time for bony and ligamentous healing and to permit secondary contracture release at the time of IJS removal. No complications were seen from delayed IJS removal.

CONCLUSION

The IJS may be used to create elbow stability in complex patients, regardless of weight, frailty, cognitive function, neurologic insult, or other comorbidities. Unlike external fixation, the IJS does not require pin site care and is relatively light and low-profile. When augmenting surgical fixation for elbow instability, the IJS may be preferable for patients with complex comorbidities or social dynamics.

Internal Joint Stabilizer: A Safe Treatment for Traumatic Elbow Instability

OBJECTIVES

To report early results of the "Internal Joint Stabilizer of the Elbow" (IJS-E) in the treatment of terrible triad injuries and other unstable traumatic elbow dislocations.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Seventeen patients with traumatic elbow instability treated with IJS-E over a 2-year period; 7 of whom sustained terrible triad-type injuries.

INTERVENTIONS

Open reduction internal fixation with the "IJS-E".

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Elbow stability and arc of motion were assessed radiographically and clinically. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were collected by telephone.

RESULTS

All elbows were radiographically stable at the time of IJS-E removal. Mean time of follow-up was 9 months from index operation (range, 2.5-24 months). Mean elbow arc of motion was restored to flexion-extension 92 degrees (range, 5-125; SD, 31 degrees) and forearm pronation-supination 139 degrees (range, 0-180; SD, 48 degrees). Mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 22.2 (range, 7.5-45.7; SD, 13.3) for patients at least 1 month from surgery on the ipsilateral extremity. Five patients (30%) developed complications, and -2 (12%) required revision for implant failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The IJS-E offered reliable treatment of traumatic elbow instability, particularly terrible triad-type injuries. It permited early range of motion and was effective in restoring elbow stability. We believe that the use of this relatively novel system should be further explored.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Treatment of Unstable Elbow Injuries with a Hinged Elbow Fixator: Subjective and Objective Results

Introduction

Injuries around the elbow pose a challenging problem for orthopaedic surgeons. The complex bony architecture of the joint should be restored and the thin soft tissue envelope needs to be handled with meticulous care. Elbow instability is a complication seen after dislocations and fractures of the elbow and remains a treatment challenge. The purpose of this study was to provide subjective and objective results following the surgical treatment of unstable elbow dislocations with an external hinged fixation technique.

Methods

Forty-six consecutive patients with complex trauma of the elbow with instability after ligament reconstruction were enrolled between January 2017 and December 2019. The parameters used to quantify the subjective and objective functional results were the Mayo Elbow Score (MES, objective) and Oxford Elbow Score (OES, subjective), and clinical stability of the elbow joint. We also performed a radiological follow-up of the fractures.

Results

The mean MES and OES scores were good at the 12-month follow-up. We had 38 patients with stable joints and 8 patients with minor instability. Using the stress test, we saw a significant difference in the affected joint under varus stress (6.7 ± 1.8 mm) compared to the healthy joint (5.8 ± 1.2 mm) laterally. Furthermore, medially the gap was significantly larger (5.8 ± 0.8 mm, treated elbow) than the contralateral gap under valgus stress (4.3 ± 0.8 mm) (p <0.001). Twenty-one complications occurred in 46 patients (46%): Seven patients had a clinical change of elbow axis: Three valgus (6%), four varus (9%); Superficial wound infection occurred in one case (2%) and ulnar nerve dysfunction in two (4%). The most common medium-term complication was post-traumatic osteoarthritis in eight cases (17%). Heterotopic ossification occurred in five patients (11%) and elbow stiffness in five cases (11%).

Conclusion

The use of the hinged elbow external fixator in the treatment of complex elbow trauma is a valid therapeutic adjunct to ligamentous reconstruction showing encouraging results with acceptable complications.

How to cite this article

Meccariello L, Caiaffa V, Mader K, et al. Treatment of Unstable Elbow Injuries with a Hinged Elbow Fixator: Subjective and Objective Results. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2022;17(2):68–73.

Complications and range of motion of patients with an elbow dislocation treated with a hinged external fixator: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Elbow dislocations are at risk for persistent instability and stiffness of the joint. Treatment with a hinged external fixation provides elbow joint stability, and allows early mobilization to prevent stiffness. Mounting a hinged elbow fixator correctly, however, is technically challenging. The low incidence rate of elbow dislocations with persistent instability suggests that centralization would result in higher surgeon exposure and consequently in less complications. This study aimed to investigate the results of treatment of elbow dislocations with a hinged elbow fixator on the rate of complications, range of motion, level of pain and restrictions in activities of daily living.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study in a level I trauma center, in which the majority of patients was treated by a dedicated elbow surgeon, was performed. All patients of 16 years or older treated with a hinged external elbow fixator between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2017 were included. The fixator could be used (1) for the treatment of persistent instability in acute/residual simple and complex dislocations or (2) as revision surgery to treat joint incongruency or a stiff elbow. Patient and injury characteristics, details on treatment, complications, secondary interventions, and range of motion were extracted from the patients' medical files.

RESULTS

The results of treatment of 34 patients were analyzed with a median follow-up of 13 months. The fixator was removed after a median period of 48 days. Fixator-related complications encountered were six pintract infections, one redisclocation, one joint incongruency, one muscle hernia, and one hardware failure. The median range of motion at the end of follow-up was 140° flexion, 15° constraint in extension, 90° pronation, and 80° supination.

CONCLUSION

A hinged elbow fixator applied by a dedicated elbow surgeon in cases of elbow instability after elbow dislocations can result in excellent joint function. Fixator-related complications are mostly mild and only temporary.

The adjunct use of lateral hinged external fixator in the treatment of traumatic destabilizing elbow injuries

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the results of using a lateral hinged external fixator as an adjunct stabilizer in the treatment of a variety of acute destabilizing elbow injuries.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on the medical records of patients in whom a lateral monolateral elbow hinged external fixator was applied by the senior author. The indication to apply the fixator corresponded to a variety of acute injury patterns ranging from simple elbow trauma or dislocation to complex fracture-dislocation, and the decision was based on either the presence of recurrent or persistent instability in any direction and/or to secure a vulnerable or weak bony fixation or soft tissue repair as intra-operatively judged by the surgeon. The fixator was inserted in the same setting after the repair of the associated ligamentous and/or bony structures. Patients operated after one month of the trauma and those presented with open elbow injury or associated humeral or ulnar shaft fracture were excluded. Rehabilitation was immediately started and the fixator removed at six to eight weeks with elbow testing and gentle manipulation under general anaesthesia, and resuming of rehabilitation after removal. Clinical assessment was performed for all patients according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) with evaluation of range of motion at regular intervals till the end of the post-operative first year, then at final follow-up for the purpose of the study with radiographic assessment for evaluation of elbow reduction and concentricity.

RESULTS

There were 13 patients with a mean age of 42 years. Two patients had instability secondary to LCL rupture; one patient had redislocation because of associated coronoid process fracture; one patient had radial head fracture with rupture of both collateral ligaments; five patients had terrible triad injury with variable association of collateral ligaments lesions; and four patients had posterior Monteggia fracture-dislocation. The mean MEPS was 90 at a mean follow-up of seven years with six excellent, six good, and one fair result. All patients had a concentrically reduced and stable elbow as assessed clinically and radiologically with a mean functional arc of motion of 132° for extension-flexion and 178° for pronation-supination.

CONCLUSION

The hinged elbow external fixator represents a valuable adjunct in the therapeutic arsenal for the treatment of unstable elbows after bony and soft tissue repair. It provides satisfactory results in terms of stability and function and should be available in the operating room when a surgeon treats a complex elbow dislocation or fracture-dislocation.

Injury of the brachial artery accompanying simple closed elbow dislocation: a case report

Background:

Elbow dislocation is the second common dislocation in adults, after the shoulder. The anatomical proximity to the joint of the brachial artery could lead to concomitant vascular injuries, even if their occurrence remains very rare.

Method:

It is reported the case of a right-hand-dominant 42-year-old man who sustained a simple closed posterior elbow dislocation of his left elbow, associated to a complete brachial artery rupture. He urgently underwent the reduction of the joint dislocation and an artery-repairing surgical procedure using a graft from ipsilateral saphenous vein.

Results:

The full functional capacity of the elbow was obtained.

Conclusions:

The abundance of the brachial artery collateral network may hide the presence of a vascular injury, potentially associated to a closed elbow dislocation. Therefore, a high index of suspicious should be maintained. The Emergency Team plays a crucial role in its early diagnosis, which is essential to avoid irreversible ischemia related damages. A prompt reduction of the joint dislocation and the vascular injury surgical repair are required. Regarding the treatment of the concomitant collateral ligaments and capsular injuries, the indication to proceed to the simultaneous ligaments reconstruction is still controversial in literature.

[External fixator of the elbow]

AIM OF SURGERY

The placement of an external elbow fixator can be statically carried out as temporary stabilization or as a hinged movement fixator. As a hinged movement fixator a functional follow-up treatment is possible due to control of the joint guidance and reduction of the compromising forces on the osteoligamentous structures.

INDICATIONS

As a temporary stabilization of the elbow, the external fixator is used as a damage control method. As a movement fixator it is used as an additional protection and movement control after complex osteoligamentous interventions and persisting tendency to dislocation of the joint and also as a standalone procedure. In some cases, the procedure is also used in distraction arthrolysis of stiff elbows and as a salvage procedure in patients with relevant comorbidities as part of fracture treatment.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Inexperience in relation to the procedure as well as a local acute infection at the level of the intended pin locations should specifically be mentioned as contraindications. In addition, compliance and patient understanding of the procedure are essential for the success of treatment.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Soft tissue preparation for pin placement should be preferred over percutaneous incisions to enable a safe bone exposure. Knowledge of the course of neurovascular structures (particularly the radial nerve) is essential. When placing a hinge, knowledge of the position and detection of the idealized center of rotation is of fundamental importance.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

The type of postoperative management required essentially depends on the underlying injury. When placing a hinged fixator, the aim is to enable movement as early as possible. Nevertheless, blocking of the hinged fixator may be useful for a short period of time. Adequate pin care over the duration of the treatment is essential in order to prevent complications.

RESULTS

Good functional results have been reported for the treatment of unstable elbows after primary and secondary placement of a hinged external fixator. Good functional scores and improvement in the range of motion were also recorded in the context of an arthrolysis (additive for open arthrolysis or distraction arthrolysis); however, in contrast a significant number of complications associated with this surgery are likely to emerge. As a definitive salvage procedure, satisfactory results were obtained in a small case series of a selected older patient group with relevant comorbidities.

Patient outcomes for the Internal Joint Stabilizer of the Elbow (IJS-E)

BACKGROUND

Recently, the Internal Joint Stabilizer of the Elbow (IJS-E) was developed as an internal dynamic fixator for use in the setting of traumatic elbow instability. This study reviews the patients who had an IJS-E placed at our institution. Specifically, postoperative complications, postoperative functional outcomes, and need for subsequent procedures were reviewed.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients in whom the IJS-E was implanted from June 2016 to July 2018. Indications for use, range of motion at final follow-up, and the need for subsequent procedures were reviewed. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and Broberg-Morrey scores were also obtained.

RESULTS

Ten IJS-E devices were implanted into 10 patients. Average length of follow-up was 13.4 months. Average flexion-extension and pronation-supination motion arcs at final follow-up were 106° and 141°, respectively. Seventy-eight percent of patients achieved >100° arcs of both flexion-extension and pronation-supination. Average DASH and Broberg-Morrey scores were 28.7 and 68.2, respectively. Four subsequent procedures were required in 4 patients: 2 contracture releases, 1 medial collateral ligament reconstruction, and 1 total elbow arthroplasty. There were no postoperative infections or nerve injuries.

DISCUSSION

The IJS-E has replaced the use of external hinged fixation at our institution. Final range of motion was consistent with that reported for terrible triad and complex elbow dislocation injuries. The IJS-E is a good option for use in patients with traumatic elbow instability, as it restores motion and function without immediate postoperative complication. However, it does not eliminate the potential for future operative intervention in these complex injuries.

The use of articulated external fixation for complex elbow trauma treatment

INTRODUCTION

We use external elbow joint fixator (FE-F4) for fracture and dislocation of the ulnohumeral joint to evaluate the early articular mobilization maintaining concentric reduction, protecting the osteoligamentous reconstruction and avoiding postoperative stiffness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two patients (13 men and 19 women) were treated with FE-F4: 7 simple dislocations (21.9%), 15 distal humerus fractures (46.9%), 4 fractures and dislocations of which 1 terrible triad (12.5%), and 6 complex dislocations (18.7%). The mean age was 64 years. The average follow-up (FU) was 47 months. We evaluated the flexion-extension and prone-supination movement arc, VAS (Visual Analogue Scale), Quick DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score), MEPI (Mayo Elbow Performance Index) and the Broberg and Morrey rating system.

RESULTS

The average ROM was 125.9° for flexion-extension, 77.8° for pronation and 79.7° for supination. The average VAS was 0.56 at the FU, the MEPI score of 93.6, the Broberg and Morrey rating system of 92.4 and the Quick DASH of 8.7. No major complications were found after surgery, and no objective or subjective posterolateral or medial joint instability was found. No patients at the FU had a new surgery with arthromyolysis or elbow arthroplasty.

DISCUSSION

The elbow joint stiffness is the main cause of functional inability for the patient suffering from posttraumatic outcomes. The FE-F4 allows an early mobilization, even in case of injuries or complex reconstructions, keeping the joint stable and protecting any bone synthesis and the damaged capsule-ligament structures.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Repair and augmentation of the lateral collateral ligament complex using internal bracing in dislocations and fracture dislocations of the elbow restores stability and allows early rehabilitation

PURPOSE

Most elbow dislocations can be treated conservatively, with surgery indicated in special circumstances. Surgical options, apart from fracture fixation, range from repair or reconstruction of the damaged ligaments to static external fixation, usually entailing either a long period of immobilization followed by carefully monitored initiation of movement or dynamic external fixation. In general, no consensus regarding surgical treatment has been reached. A new method of open ligament repair and augmentation of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament using a non-absorbable suture tape in cases of acute and subacute elbow instability following dislocations has been described here, which allows an early, brace-free initiation of the full range of motion. This is the first description of the technique of internal bracing of the lateral elbow with preliminary patient outcome parameters for acute treatment of posterolateral rotatory instability.

METHODS

Seventeen patients (14 males and 3 females) with acute or subacute posterolateral elbow instability as a result of dislocation or fracture dislocation were treated in our centre (Sporthopaedicum, Straubing, Regensburg, Germany) from 2014 to 2015 with open LUCL re-fixation and non-absorbable suture tape augmentation. The elbows were actively mobilized immediately after the operation and a maximum bracing period of 3 days.

RESULTS

At 10 month median follow-up, none of the patients showed clinically apparent signs of instability or suffered subluxation or re-dislocation. One patient required re-operation for heterotopic ossification. The median range of motion was from 10° (0-40) to 130° (90-50) and median Oxford, Mayo Elbow Performance score, Simple Elbow Value, and DASH Scores were 41(29-48), 100 (70-100), 83% (60-95), and 18.5 (1.6-66), respectively. All patients reported a complete return to pre-injury level of activity.

CONCLUSION

Augmentation with a non-absorbable suture tape acting as an 'Internal Brace' following an elbow dislocation is a safe adjunct to primary ligament repair and may allow the early mobilization and recovery of elbow stability and range of motion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The use of static external fixation for chronic instability of the elbow

BACKGROUND

Chronic elbow instability after trauma is a challenging problem. Clinical results of external elbow fixation in this setting are limited, with most studies focusing on hinged external fixation. A static fixator is an alternative for maintaining joint reduction. Advantages of a static frame include ease of application, decreased need for special instrumentation, and more secure maintenance of a concentrically reduced joint in the setting of bone or soft tissue instability. The primary limitation of static fixation is the potential for stiffness.

METHODS

This retrospective review represents the largest reported cohort evaluating the use of static elbow external fixation for the treatment of chronic elbow instability. Twenty-seven cases treated by a single surgeon between 2004 and 2015 were identified.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were available for a clinical evaluation, including radiographs and a physical examination at a mean follow-up of 5.8 years (range, 1.4-12.4 years). Of note, 19 of 20 were clinically obese or overweight. At final evaluation, range of motion averaged from 20° ± 13° of extension to 134° ± 9° of flexion. All patients had stable elbows, except 1 patient who had valgus and varus laxity on stress examination. Radiographs of this patient showed an incongruous joint. Eight patients required an additional operation after external fixator removal, 3 for infection and 5 for stiffness.

CONCLUSIONS

At almost 6 years of follow-up, static elbow external fixator resulted in a congruous joint with adequate functional and clinical outcomes in 95% of patients.

CT Analysis of a Potential Safe Zone for Placing External Fixator Pins in the Humerus

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic radial nerve injures are a common complication during the placement of external fixator pins at the lateral aspect of the humeral shaft. This study uses a three-dimensional measurement technique to locate a safe entry point for humeral pins when externally fixating the elbow. Methods: We fixed a guide wire to the radial nerve by a suture string, and used computed tomography (CT) to scan the upper limbs of cadaver specimens. Then, we measured the deviation angles of the radial nerve on the CT scans, and the distance from the radial nerve to the "elbow rotation center" (ERC). Result: The average distance from the radial nerve to the ERC was 87.3 ± 8.5 mm (range: 68-100 mm), 58.3 ± 11.3 mm (range: 32.12-82.84 mm), 106.3 ± 5.8 mm (range: 86.93-115.08 mm), and 113.9 ± 4.8 mm (range: 97.93-120.22 mm) at radial nerve deviation angles of 0°, -30°, 30°, and 45°, respectively. The average radial nerve deviation angle was -37.7° ± 7.7° and 123.9° ± 19.9° at 50 and 150 mm, respectively. Relative to 0°, the distance between the radial nerve and the ERC at radial nerve deviation angles of -30°, 30°, and 45° showed a significant difference (t = 18.20, p < 0.05; Z = 6.07, p < 0.001; Z = 6.40, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Pins inserted into the proximal humerus should be about 150 mm from the ERC with a radial nerve deviation angle of 30° anteriorly, and 50 mm from the ERC with a deviation angle of 30°-45° posteriorly.

Prevention and management of early treatment failures in elbow injuries

The appropriate management of early treatment failures in patients with elbow injuries requires the identification of the cause of failure. In this work, six types of elbow injury are considered: (i) identification of early failed reduction of a dislocation or fracture-dislocation of the elbow should lead to a repeat reduction procedure, testing for elbow instability, and ligament repair, followed by the use of a hinged external fixator to allow early mobilisation. Differentiating an isolated dislocation from a dislocation combined with a fracture of the coracoid process is crucial. Re-implantation of the coronoid process allows repair of the ligaments and restoration of stability in the sagittal plane; (ii) early secondary displacement of a distal humeral fracture after internal fixation is usually due to insufficient fixation confined to a single humeral pillar. If both humeral pillars are fractured, then both must be repaired; (iii) early treatment failure of an intra-articular distal humeral fracture in an elderly patient with bone loss warrants distal humeral hemiarthroplasty or total elbow arthroplasty; (iv) in fractures of the olecranon, treatment failures are due to insufficient fixation or to a mistaken diagnosis of trans-olecranon fracture-dislocation; (v) in fractures of the radial head, causes of early revision include excessive tilting of the head in radial neck fractures, with secondary displacement due to insufficient internal fixation, and adverse effects on the wrist of radial head resection performed without assessing the ulnar variance. In patients with radial head fractures, no treatment decisions can be made before performing an anteroposterior radiograph of the wrist; (vii) in fracture-dislocations of both the radius and ulna, accurate reduction of the ulnar fracture is a pre-requisite to proper reduction of the radio-humeral and proximal radio-ulnar joints. An early postoperative assessment, within 10 days after surgery, is of paramount importance to re-evaluate the initial treatment and, if needed, to introduce modifications. Early failure of the initial treatment of an elbow injury should lead to the prompt implementation of corrective measures: follow-up anteroposterior and lateral radiographs must be obtained on day 8 to ensure the diagnosis of initial treatment failure and to allow the institution of an appropriate management strategy; the dogma stating that the elbow should never be immobilised remains valid, and every effort should be made to ensure that mobilisation starts as early as possible.

Treatment of Traumatic Elbow Instability With an Internal Joint Stabilizer

PURPOSE

Current options for treating elbow instability include bony and/or ligamentous fixation with orthosis or cast immobilization, transarticular cross-pinning, temporary bridge plating, and hinged or rigid external fixation. Our purpose was to evaluate the recently developed internal joint stabilizer (IJS), which acts as an internal external fixator of the elbow. Our primary end point was to assess whether use of the device results in a stable and congruent reduction of the ulnohumeral and radiocapitellar joints in patients with acute or chronic elbow instability as a result of trauma. In our series, patients with elbow instability as a result of acute or chronic trauma were treated with an IJS.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed 20 patients who underwent placement of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved IJS for elbow instability. Serial physical examinations and radiographs were performed to verify stability. Patients were instructed that, if they are dissatisfied with their postoperative motion, a secondary contracture release operation will be offered to them. Patients were asked to complete outcome-scoring questionnaires including the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and hand (DASH) and Mayo Elbow Performance (MEP) score. Complications were monitored for all patients.

RESULTS

Twenty patients who underwent placement of an IJS for persistent elbow instability were reviewed. Patients with a flexion-extension arc of 70° or less at 12 weeks were offered a staged arthroscopic contracture release. The average MEP score improved from 12.2 ± 12.4 to 82.5 ± 14.3 and the average DASH score improved from 85.3 ± 23.0 to 37.26 ± 29.3. The average postoperative flexion-extension arc at most recent follow-up was 124.3° ± 14.9°, with a median follow-up of 17 months (8 weeks-25 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an IJS allows for early, congruent, and stable ulnohumeral and radiocapitellar range of motion in instances of persistent elbow instability.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Effects of the Elbow Flexion Angle on the Radial Nerve Location around the Humerus: A Cadaver Study for Safe Installation of a Hinged External Fixator

Background: This study aimed to investigate whether the distance between the radial nerve and rotational center of the elbow joint when observing from the lateral surface of the humerus changes according to passive elbow joint flexion for safe external fixation with a hinged fixator of the elbow joint.

Methods: Twenty fresh-frozen cadaveric arms were dissected. The points where the radial nerve crosses over the posterior aspect of the humerus, crosses through the lateral center, and crosses over the anterior aspect of the humerus were defined in the lateral view of the elbow joint, using fluoroscopy, as R1, R2, and R3, respectively. The distances between the rotational center and each point on the radial nerve were measured when the flexion angle of the elbow joint was 10°, 50°, 90°, and 130°.

Results: The distances between the rotational center and R1, R2, and R3 were 118 mm, 94 mm, and 65 mm, respectively, when the flexion angle was 10°; 112 mm, 93 mm, and 74 mm, respectively, for 50°; 108 mm, 93 mm, and 77 mm, respectively, for 90°; and 103 mm, 94 mm, and 83 mm, respectively, for 130°. The distance between the rotational center and R2 was constant regardless of the flexion angle. With elbow joint extension, the distances between R1 and R3 increased; the safe zone, a region where the radial nerve would not be located on the humerus, was the smallest in extension. When the elbow joint was flexed, the distances between R1 and R3 decreased; the safe zone was the largest in flexion.

Conclusions: This study showed that the radial nerve location on the humerus varied based on the flexion angle of the elbow joint; the safe zone may change. A half-pin can be likely inserted safely, avoiding the elbow joint extension position.

Unstable simple elbow dislocations: medium-term results after non-surgical and surgical treatment

PURPOSE

Determination of the appropriate treatment of unstable simple elbow dislocations is difficult and a topic of ongoing discussion. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcome and complications after surgery and conservative treatment, with special focus on post-traumatic joint laxity.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 118 consecutive patients with simple elbow dislocations underwent stability testing by fluoroscopy after joint reduction and were assigned to groups 1 (slight), 2 (moderate) or 3 (gross) depending on post-traumatic joint laxity. All patients of group 1 underwent conservative treatment, and of group 3 primary ligament repair. In patients with moderate elbow laxity, the treatment was decided individually. All patients underwent a similar functional rehabilitation programme during treatment. Clinical outcome was determined after an average of 3.4 ± 1.5 years using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and treatment-associated complications and revisions were recorded.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients (41.5 %) were assigned to group 1, 41 patients (34.7 %) to group 2 and 28 patients (23.7 %) to group 3. In group 2, 22 patients underwent ligament repair, while 19 patients were treated conservatively. On average, an excellent MEPS was achieved in group 1 after conservative treatment (MEPS 95.8 ± 9.0), similar to results after ligament repair of grossly unstable elbows in group 3 (91.6 ± 11.7). Interestingly, in group 2 conservative treatment was associated with a slightly lower MEPS (90.0 vs. 95.7), and significantly fewer patients achieved an excellent MEPS (81.8 vs. 52.6 %, p = 0.045). Similarly, conservative treatment in group 2 was associated with a fivefold to sixfold risk of complications (p = 0.032) and revision surgery (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the notion that patients with slight elbow laxity can be treated non-operatively, while primary surgical treatment should be performed in patients with moderate and gross laxity to avoid post-traumatic sequelae and decrease revision rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective Cohort Study, Level III.

Multicenter trial of an internal joint stabilizer for the elbow

BACKGROUND

Our primary efficacy objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the internal joint stabilizer of the elbow (IJS-E) in maintaining concentric location of the elbow during and after removal of the device in the treatment of persistent or recurrent instability after elbow fracture or dislocations, or both. The secondary study objectives were to assess range of motion, Broberg-Morrey functional score, Broberg-Morrey categorical rating, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and the rate of complications and adverse events after the use of IJS-E.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients were studied in a multicenter, nonrandomized, prospective, single-arm study. The IJS-E was used to provide temporary stabilization of the elbow joint and allow a functional range of motion while ligaments and fractures healed.

RESULTS

The elbow remained concentrically aligned in 23 of 24 patients. One coronoid-deficient elbow did not maintain concentric reduction. At the last evaluation a minimum of 6 months after device removal, the mean arc of elbow flexion was 119° (range, 80°-150°; standard deviation [SD], 18°), and the mean arc of forearm rotation was 151° (range, 90°-190°; SD, 24°). The mean and median Broberg-Morrey scores were 93 and 97, respectively. Categorically the results were excellent in 14, good in 8, fair in 1, and poor in 1. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 16 (range, 0-68; SD, 18).

CONCLUSION

The IJS-E maintains concentric reduction, allows elbow motion, and avoids the inconveniences and pin problems of percutaneous fixation.

Initial joint stability affects the outcome after conservative treatment of simple elbow dislocations: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Conservative treatment of simple elbow dislocations can lead to complications such as persisting pain and restricted joint mobility. The current aim was to identify patients with deteriorated outcome after conservative treatment and to investigate a possible association with initial joint (in)stability.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients (mean age 37.1 ± 17.2 years) with simple elbow dislocations received conservative treatment. After closed reduction, joint stability was tested by varus and valgus stress under fluoroscopy. According to the findings under fluoroscopy, three different groups of instability could be identified: (1) slight instability (joint angulation <10°; n = 49), (2) moderate instability (angulation ≥10°; n = 19) and (3) gross instability. Patients with gross instability (re-dislocation under stability testing) were treated with primary surgical ligament repair and therefore excluded from this study. Additionally, MRIs and radiographs were analysed regarding warning signs of instability such as the drop sign and joint incongruence. Main outcome parameters were the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range of motion (ROM), complications and revision rates.

RESULTS

After 40.7 ± 20.4 months, the overall MEPS was excellent (94.2 ± 11.3) with a trend of slightly worse clinical results in group 2 (95.8 ± 9.0 vs. 90.0 ± 15.2 points; p = 0.154). In group 1, significantly more patients achieved an excellent result regarding the MEPS scoring system (77.6 vs. 52.6 %; p = 0.043) and elbow extension was significantly worse in group 2 (5.3 ± 9.9° vs. 1.4 ± 3.0°; p = 0.015). Seven treatment complications occurred in group 2 (36.8 %) compared with two in group 1 (4.1 %, p < 0.0001). Six patients (8.8 %) needed secondary surgery with an 8.4-fold higher risk for revision surgery in group 2 (p = 0.007). The presence of a positive drop sign or joint incongruence led to higher odds ratio (OR) for complications (OR = 15.9) and revision surgery (OR = 10.3).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that patients with moderate joint instability after simple elbow dislocation have a significantly worse clinical outcome, more complications and a higher need for secondary revision surgery following conservative treatment compared to patients with slight elbow instability.