Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty for advanced-stage primary osteoarthritis of the elbow using a computed tomography-based classification

Prevalence, Timing, Locational Distribution, and Risk Factors for Heterotopic Ossification After Elbow Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic techniques aim to reduce complications and accelerate recovery of the elbow after treatments for posttraumatic stiffness, arthritis diseases, lateral epicondylitis, ligament reconstruction, and elbow trauma. However, data on the true prevalence and characteristics of heterotopic ossification (HO) formation after elbow arthroscopy are limited.

PURPOSE

To investigate the prevalence, timing, locational distribution, and risk factors of HO after elbow arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Data on 205 patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy by a single senior elbow surgeon at a single institution between May 2011 and January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were evaluated at 2 weeks, 8 weeks, 6 months, and then annually after surgery or more frequently if HO developed, with a minimum of 1 year of postoperative follow-up. Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral elbow radiographs were taken at 2 weeks to rule out fracture and at 8 weeks to identify HO. The clinical outcomes were evaluated based on the pain visual analog scale; the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score; Mayo Elbow Performance Score; and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores before and after surgery. Bivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors affecting HO prevalence.

RESULTS

Thirteen (12 male, 1 female) of 205 (6.3%) patients developed HO, with 10 (76.9%) with HO that formed on the medial compartment of the elbow. Ten (76.9%) patients were diagnosed at 8 weeks after arthroscopic surgery, 1 (7.7%) at 6 months after surgery, and 2 (15.4%) at 12 months after surgery. HO was not found at 2 weeks after surgery in any patient. The mean follow-up time was 3.5 years (range, 1.0-11.8 years). Eleven asymptomatic patients were treated nonoperatively, and 2 symptomatic patients underwent HO excision arthroscopically or had a combination of open surgery and arthroscopy. Age was a protective factor for HO formation (odds ratio [OR], 0.953; 95% CI, 0.910-0.999; P = .047). The risk factors for HO formation were tourniquet time (OR, 1.042; 95% CI, 1.019-1.065; P < .001) and surgical time (OR, 1.026; 95% CI, 1.011-1.041; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Among 205 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy, HO was a minor complication of elbow arthroscopy, with a prevalence rate of 6.3%, and was usually located on the medial compartment of the elbow. Although the presence of HO may not affect the clinical outcomes in most patients, it should be carefully monitored for a minimum of 8 weeks postoperatively. Younger age, longer tourniquet time, and longer surgical time contributed to HO formation after elbow arthroscopy.

Radiologically severe osteoarthritis is related to worse clinical outcomes after arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty in primary elbow osteoarthritis at medium-term follow-up: a retrospective cohort study

HYPOTHESIS

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA) at medium-term follow-up according to the radiologic severity of primary elbow osteoarthritis (OA) and assess serial changes in clinical outcomes in each group.

METHODS

Patients treated from January 2010 to April 2019 with arthroscopic OCA for primary elbow OA with a minimum of 3 years' follow-up were retrospectively assessed regarding range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) preoperatively, at short-term follow-up (3-12 months postoperatively), and at medium-term follow-up (≥3 years after surgery). Preoperative computed tomography was performed to evaluate the radiologic severity of OA using the Kwak classification. Clinical outcomes were compared according to the radiologic severity of OA by their absolute values and the number of patients achieving the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). Serial changes in the clinical outcomes in each subgroup were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 43 patients, 14, 18, and 11 were classified as the stage I, II, and III groups, respectively; the mean follow-up duration was 71.3 ± 28.9 months, and the mean age was 56.5 ± 7.2 years. At medium-term follow-up, the stage I group had a better ROM arc (stage I, 114° ± 14°; stage II, 100° ± 23°; and stage III, 97° ± 20°; P = .067) and VAS pain score (stage I, 0.9 ± 1.3; stage II, 1.8 ± 2.1; and stage III, 2.4 ± 2.1; P = .168) than the stage II and III groups without reaching statistical significance, whereas the stage I group had a significantly better MEPS (stage I, 93.2 ± 7.5; stage II, 84.7 ± 11.9; and stage III, 78.6 ± 15.2; P = .017) than the stage III group. The percentages of patients achieving the PASS for the ROM arc (P = .684) and VAS pain score (P = .398) were comparable between the 3 groups; however, the percentage achieving the PASS for the MEPS was significantly higher in the stage I group than in the stage III group (100.0% vs. 54.5%, P = .016). During serial assessment, all clinical outcomes tended to improve at the short-term follow-up. Compared with the short-term period, the ROM arc tended to decrease at the medium-term follow-up whereas the VAS pain score and MEPS overall did not show significant changes.

CONCLUSION

After arthroscopic OCA, the stage I group showed an overall better ROM arc and pain score than the stage II and III groups at medium-term follow-up, whereas the stage I group showed a significantly better MEPS and higher percentage of patients achieving the PASS for the MEPS than the stage III group.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Osteocapsular Arthroplasty in Primary Elbow Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA) achieves significant medium-term outcomes in patients with primary elbow osteoarthritis (OA); however, outcomes after revision arthroscopic OCA are not well known.

PURPOSE

To assess clinical outcomes after revision arthroscopic OCA as compared with those after primary surgery in patients with OA.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic OCA attributed to primary elbow OA between January 2010 and July 2020 were enrolled. Range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were assessed. Operation time and complications were assessed by chart review. Clinical outcomes between the primary and revision surgery groups were compared, and subgroup analysis for radiologically severe OA was performed.

RESULTS

Data from 61 patients were analyzed (primary, n = 53; revision, n = 8). The mean ± SD age was 56.3 ± 8.5 and 54.3 ± 8.9 years in the primary and revision groups, respectively. The primary group had significantly better ROM arcs preoperatively (89.9°± 20.3° vs 71.3°± 22.3°; P = .021) and postoperatively (112.4°± 17.1° vs 96.9°± 16.5°; P = .019) than the revision group; however, the degree of improvement was comparable (P = .445). Postoperative VAS pain score (P = .164) and MEPS (P = .581) were comparable between the groups, as were the degrees of improvement in VAS pain score (P = .691) and MEPS (P = .604). The revision group required a significantly longer operative time than the primary group (P = .004) and had a nonsignificant higher complication rate (P = .065). Subgroup analysis showed that radiologically severe cases in the primary group had significantly better preoperative (P = .010) and postoperative (P = .030) ROM arcs than the revision group and a comparable postoperative VAS pain score (P = .155) and MEPS (P = .658).

CONCLUSION

Revision arthroscopic OCA is a favorable treatment option for primary elbow OA with recurrent symptoms. Postoperative ROM arc was worse after revision surgery as compared with primary surgery; however, the degree of improvement was comparable. Postoperative VAS pain score and MEPS were comparable with primary surgery.

Serial Changes in Clinical Outcomes After Arthroscopic Osteocapsular Arthroplasty for Primary Elbow Osteoarthritis: A Medium-term Follow-up Study

Background

Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA) shows promising short-term outcomes for primary elbow osteoarthritis (OA). However, serial changes in clinical outcomes for medium-term follow-up are not well known.

Purpose

To evaluate clinical outcomes after arthroscopic OCA in primary elbow OA from preoperative to short- and medium-term follow-up and to analyze the correlation between the time from short- to medium-term follow-up and the changes in clinical outcomes between the periods.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

Patients with primary elbow OA who were treated with arthroscopic OCA between January 2010 and April 2020 were evaluated. Elbow range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were assessed preoperatively and at short-term (3-12 months) and medium-term (≥2 years) follow-up. The correlation between the time from short- to medium-term follow-up and the changes in clinical outcomes was analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results

Included were 56 patients who underwent short-term follow-up (mean [range], 5.9 [3-12] months) and medium-term follow-up (62.2 [24-129] months) after arthroscopic OCA. When compared with preoperative values, significant improvements were seen at short-term follow-up: ROM (from 89.4° to 111.7°; P < .001), VAS for pain (from 4.9 to 2.0; P < .001), and MEPS (from 62.3 to 83.7; P < .001). From short- to medium-term follow-up, ROM decreased (from 111.7° to 105.4°; P = .001) while VAS for pain (from 2.0 to 1.4; P = .031) and MEPS (from 83.7 to 87.8; P = .016) improved. All outcomes improved significantly at medium-term follow-up as compared with preoperative values (P < .001 for all). The time between short- and medium-term follow-up had a significant positive correlation with decreased ROM (r = 0.290; P = .030) and a significant negative correlation with improvement in MEPS (r = -0.274; P = .041).

Conclusion

Serial assessment of patients with primary elbow OA who underwent arthroscopic OCA showed that the clinical outcomes improved from preoperative assessment to short- and medium-term follow-up, although ROM decreased between short- and medium-term follow-up. VAS for pain and MEPS showed continued improvement until medium-term follow-up.

Biomechanical impact of elbow motion in elbow stiffness

BACKGROUND

A mechanical block in the elbow due to osteophytes in the olecranon fossa is a common clinical symptom for elbow stiffness.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

This study aims to understand the biomechanical characteristics or changes in the stiff elbow in the resting (or neutral) and swing position of the arm using a cadaveric model. The hypotheses included the following: (1) a difference exists in the articular contact pressure of the elbow by comparing the non-stiff and stiff models in in vivo studies; (2) the degree of stiffness would affect the increase of the joint loading of the elbow.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study, cadaveric study.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen specimens from individuals of both sexes were included in the biomechanical study. The specimen was mounted on a custom-designed jig system with gravity-assisted muscle contracture to mimic the elbow in a standing position. The elbow was tested in two conditions (the resting and passive swing). Contact pressure was recorded for three seconds in the resting position, which was the neutral position of the humerus. By dropping the forearm from 90° of the elbow flexion, the passive swing was performed. The specimens were tested sequentially in three stages of stiffness (stage 0, no stiffness; stage 1, 30° of extension limitation; and stage 2, 60° of extension limitation). After data collection was completed in stage 0, a stiff model was sequentially created for each stage. The stiff model of the elbow was created by blocking the olecranon by inserting a 2.0 K-wire into the olecranon fossa horizontally with the intercondylar axis.

RESULTS

The mean contact pressures were 279 ± 23, 302 ± 6, and 349 ± 23 kPa in stages 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The increases in the mean contact pressure in stages 2 versus 0 were significant (P < 0.0001). The mean contact pressures were 297 ± 19, 310 ± 14, and 326 ± 13 kPa in stages 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The peak contact pressures were 420 ± 54, 448 ± 84, and 500 ± 67 kPa in stages 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The increases in mean contact pressure in stage 2 versus 0 were significant (P = 0.039). The increases in peak contact pressure in stages 0 versus 2 were significant (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The elbow bears the load created by gravity and muscle contracture in the resting and swing motion. Moreover, extension limitation of stiff elbow increases the load bearing in the resting position and swing motion. Careful surgical management should be considered for meticulous clearance of bony spur around olecranon fossa to resolve the extension limitation of the elbow.

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.

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

Background and Hypothesis

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Ulnar nerve decompression with osteocapsular arthroplasty for primary elbow osteoarthritis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to suggest treatment guidline for primary elbow OA with ulnar nerve neuropathy or high-grade stiffness by evaluating the effect of ulnar nerve decompression on the outcome of osteocapsular arthroplasty.

METHODS

A total of 30 patients who underwent primary osteocapsular arthroplasty for elbow OA were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical outcomes were evaluated for pain score (visual analog scale; VAS), range of motion (ROM), and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS). The ulnar nerve decompression was performed for (1) ulnar nerve neuropathy, and (2) high-grade stiffness of flexion, defined as the flexion angle, is <90°. Patients were categorized into the two groups: ulnar nerve decompression group (UD group, n = 11) and the non-decompression group (Non-UD group, n = 19). The surgical outcome was compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Primary elbow OA with cubital tunnel syndrome or high-grade stiffness showed comparable improvement in MEPS, VAS, and ROM arc at final follow-up in the UD group compared with the non-UD group (UD group vs. non-UD group: MEPS 85.91 vs 86.84, p-value = 0.824, VAS 1.46 vs 1.16, p-value = 0.588, ROM arc 108 vs 109, p-value = 0.949). Improvement in ROM arc at 2 years follow-up was significantly higher in UD group (UD group vs. non-UD group: ROM arc difference, 42 vs 14, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Osteocapsular arthroplasty with ulnar nerve decompression for primary elbow OA with ulnar nerve neuropathy or high-grade stiffness provided improved motion arc and compatible clinical results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Retrospective comparative study.

Elbow Stiffness Imaging: A Practical Diagnostic and Pretherapeutic Approach

Loss of elbow motion can lead to disability in everyday gestures, recreational activities, and work. Unfortunately, the elbow joint is particularly prone to stiffness because of its complex anatomy and biomechanics. The etiology of elbow stiffness is varied and must be diagnosed accurately in order to allow optimal treatment, which may be challenging for surgeons and physiotherapists. Its treatment can be either conservative, arthroscopic or surgical, with a trend for arthroscopic procedures when conservative treatment fails. There is no consensus on the optimal imaging workup for elbow joint stiffness, which may have an impact on patient management. This article reviews the current classification systems of elbow stiffness and the various imaging techniques used for diagnosis. Report checklists and clarifications on the role of each imaging method, as well as the imaging findings of normal and stiff elbows, are presented, leading to a proposed diagnostic algorithm. The main concern in imaging is to determine the cause of elbow stiffness, as many concomitant abnormalities might be present depending on the clinical scenario.

Determination of the patient acceptable symptomatic state after osteocapsular arthroplasty for primary elbow osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The study aimed (1) to determine patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) values for the pain visual analog scale (PVAS), range-of-motion (ROM) scale difference, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and Self-evaluation Elbow (SEE) following osteocapsular arthroplasty for primary elbow osteoarthritis and (2) to determine factors for achieving the PASS.

METHODS

The study analyzed retrospectively collected osteocapsular arthroplasty registry data from January 2010 to April 2019. Fifty patients were evaluated, and anchor questions for deriving PASS values were administered at a 1-year follow-up. PASS values for the PVAS score, ROM difference, MEPS, and SEE score were derived using a sensitivity- and specificity-based approach. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors for achieving the PASS. A subgroup comparison analysis based on age was also conducted.

RESULTS

The PASS value was 1.0 for the PVAS score, 15° for ROM difference, 75 for the MEPS, and 60 for the SEE score. Older age (≥65 years) showed significantly lower odds ratios for achieving the PASS for the PVAS score (0.888; 95% confidence interval, 0.804-0.981; P = .032) and ROM (0.861; 95% confidence interval, 0.760-0.976; P = .020).

CONCLUSION

Reliable PASS values were derived for the PVAS score, ROM difference, MEPS, and SEE score after osteocapsular arthroplasty. The PASS values defined in this study can be implemented as clinically relevant targets in patients undergoing osteocapsular arthroplasty. An analysis of factors that affect clinical symptom improvement showed that older age (≥65 years) was significantly correlated with lower PASS values for the PVAS score and ROM.

Effectiveness of radiographs and computed tomography in evaluating primary elbow osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative radiographic assessment of osteophyte and loose body locations is critical in planning an arthroscopic débridement for primary elbow osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of radiographs and computed tomography (CT) in localizing osteophytes and loose bodies.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 36 patients with primary elbow osteoarthritis was investigated with radiographs and multiaxial 2-dimensional CT prior to elbow arthroscopy. The location of osteophytes and loose bodies was assessed in 9 anatomic locations by 2 fellowship-trained upper extremity surgeons. The diagnostic effectiveness of both imaging modalities was evaluated by calculating the sensitivity and specificity and compared to the gold standard of elbow arthroscopy. Inter- and intrarater percentage agreement between the observations was calculated using Kappa score.

RESULTS

The mean sensitivity for detecting osteophytes in the 9 different anatomic locations was 46% with radiographs and 98% with CT, whereas the mean specificity was 66% and 21% for radiographs and CT, respectively. The mean sensitivity and specificity for loose body detection with radiography were 49% and 89%, respectively, whereas CT had a mean sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 47%. The overall inter-rater percentage agreement between the surgeons in detecting osteophytes and loose bodies on radiographs was 80% and 85%, respectively, whereas on CT it was 95% for detecting osteophytes and 91% for loose bodies.

CONCLUSION

CT has greater sensitivity than radiographs for the detection of osteophytes and loose bodies in primary elbow osteoarthritis. The lower specificity of CT may be due to this imaging modality's ability to detect small osteophytes and loose bodies that may not be readily identified during elbow arthroscopy. Radiographs have an inferior inter-rater percentage agreement compared with CT. CT is a valuable preoperative investigation to assist surgeons in identifying the location of osteophytes and loose bodies in patients undergoing surgery for primary elbow osteoarthritis.

Surgical management for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow

The objective of this review is to summarize the surgical options for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow, reported clinical outcomes, and suggested indications in previous literatures. The surgical management of primary elbow arthritis has evolved because of an improved understanding of pathologic mechanisms and manifestations as well as the development of novel surgical techniques and devices. Osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA), elbow debridement, distraction arthroplasty, and total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) have been employed for managing elbow osteoarthritis. Elbow debridement and OCA can be helpful in most cases of symptomatic elbow arthritis. TEA is usually recommended for end-stage arthritis in elderly patients after prosthetic implants have been in place for long periods or after complications. Distraction arthroplasty might find a place in the treatment of younger, active patients with end-stage arthritis.

Primary Elbow Osteoarthritis: Evaluation and Management

Most patients with primary osteoarthritis of the elbow report a history of heavy lifting with the affected upper extremity . Conservative treatment, including activity modifications, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the occasional intraarticular corticosteroid injection, may provide adequate pain relief in earlier stages . When surgery is required, and despite the presence of cartilage wear, many patients with primary elbow osteoarthritis experience substantial pain improvement with joint preserving procedures . The ulnar nerve needs to be carefully assessed and addressed at the time of surgery . Although open debridement procedures are effective, arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty has emerged as the surgical procedure of choice . Total elbow arthroplasty is very successful in terms of pain relief and function, but it is reserved for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis who are relatively older and have failed joint preserving procedures.

Comparison of surgical outcomes between rotator cuff repair with and without rotator interval capsular release for rotator cuff tears to prevent and improve postoperative stiffness: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A common complication of rotator cuff (RC) repair is a postoperative stiffness. Postoperative stiffness may develop and lead to inferior functional outcomes. Rotator cuff repair with additional rotator interval (RI) capsular release can be done to prevent postoperative stiffness in rotator cuff tears. However, routine rotator interval capsular release in rotator cuff repair is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes between RC repair with and without RI capsular release for RC tears with and without concomitant stiffness.

METHOD

We searched all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes (VAS, CS, ASES, complications and ROM at 3, 6 and 12 months) of RC repair with and without RI capsular release for RC tears with and without concomitant stiffness from PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to the February 1, 2020.

RESULTS

Seven of 255 studies (six comparative studies and one RCT) (N = 803 patients) were eligible; 2 and 5 studies were included in the pooling of RC repair and RI release without concomitant stiffness and stiffness, respectively; 2, 6, 3, 6, 3, 5, 7, 7, and 7 studies were included in pooling of VAS, CS, ASES at 6 and 12 months and range of motion (internal, external rotation and forward flexion) at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. The UMD of VAS, CS and ASES scores at 6- and 12-month follow-up for the RC repair and RI release group was 0.48 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.90), 0.93 (-1.70, 3.56), -2.27 (-5.30, 0.76), -0.04 (-0.24, 0.15), 1.66 (0.77, 2.55) and 1.58 (0.21, 2.96) scores when compared to RC repair alone with and without concomitant stiffness. In terms of ROM, forward flexion for the RC repair and RI release group was -4.60 (-10.61, 1.41), -7.11 (-15.47, 1.25) and -0.70 (-2.51, -1.11) degrees at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, when compared to RC repair alone. For external rotation, RC repair and RI release were -0.12 (-8.27, 8.03), -3.98 (-12.09, 4.14) and -2.65 (-5.35, 0.04) degrees at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, when compared to RC repair alone. For internal rotation in RC repair and RI release, the values were -1.22 (-1.97, - 0.48), -1.01 (-1.79, -0.23) and -0.19 (-1.13, 0.74) degrees at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, when compared to RC repair alone. There were no differences with a RR of 0.92 (0.46, 1.84) between the two groups in terms of complications. After subgroup analysis, RC repair with RI release had no clinically significant differences for pain, function and ROM when compared to RC repair alone in RC tear patients with and without preoperative stiffness.

CONCLUSIONS

RC repair with RI release in patients with and without preoperative stiffness had no statistically significant differences for pain, function (CS and ASES) and range of motion (FF, ER and IR) when compared to RC repair alone in RC injury patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.