Chronic complex persistent elbow instability: a consecutive and prospective case series and review of recent literature

The internal joint stabilizer for elbow instability: current concepts

The management of residual elbow instability is challenging in both acute and chronic injuries. Among the available devices, the hinged external fixator provides an additional joint stabilization while allowing an early motion, but it is clumsy and associated to high rate of pin track complications. To address these issues, an internal joint stabilizer (IJS) has been recently developed. An easier recreation of the axis of rotation coupled to the reduced lever arm of the hinge is the root of the consistent and satisfactory results thus far observed. In addition, the device is more comfortable for the patients being an internal stabilizer. Nonetheless, a second surgery for the device removal is necessary, of which the timing is still not standardized. This current concepts paper describes literature regarding outcomes of the IJS focusing on the rate of maintained radiographic joint reduction, the resultant range of motion, and the associated complication profile.

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.

Persistent elbow dislocation

Acute elbow dislocation is a common injury with an incidence in the general population estimated at around 5/100,000. Persistent (or static) elbow dislocation is a relatively rare problem but might occur due to inappropriate assessment or treatment of acute simple or complex elbow dislocations. Persistent elbow dislocation can be an invalidating and painful condition with a more ominous prognosis than an acute elbow dislocation with appropriate treatment. Surgical treatment of persistent elbow dislocation is a complex intervention that requires extended surgical exposure and arthrolysis in combination with circumferential ligamentous and osseous stabilization. Satisfactory results are described, but complication and reintervention rates are high. After-treatment with a dynamic external fixator is often necessary.

Radial head arthroplasty vs. open reduction and internal fixation for the treatment of terrible triad injury of the elbow: A systematic review and meta‑analysis update

Terrible triad injury of the elbow (TTIE) is a severe high-energy injury to the elbow, mainly including elbow dislocation, coronoid fracture and radial head fracture. It is difficult to maintain the stability of the elbow joint using traditional conservative treatment, and there is a high risk of redislocation and various complications. Therefore, surgical treatment is currently advocated, mainly for repairing damaged ligaments and reconstructing bony structures, but there is still controversy about the treatment plan for the radial head. The current meta-analysis was conducted to compare the differences in efficacy of radial head arthroplasty (RHA) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of TTIE. Published literature related to the treatment (either ORIF or RHA) of TTIE was searched for in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. According to the search strategy, a total of 1,928 related publications were retrieved. The patient must have been diagnosed with TTIE and required surgery on the radial head. The interventions were RHA and ORIF. Non-case-control studies, case reports, review articles, letters, duplicate reports and literature without sufficient relevant data were excluded. The quality of the literature was evaluated according to the Cochrane systematic review methodology and the Jadad scale. After data extraction, meta-analysis was performed using ReviewManager 5.4 software (Cochrane). A total of 15 studies involving 455 patients (189 who underwent RHA and 266 who underwent ORIF) were included. Range of motion (ROM) of the forearm (pronation-supination arc) after surgery in the RHA group [95% CI (0.28, 9.59); P=0.04] was found to be significantly superior to the ORIF group, with a lower incidence of complications [95% CI (0.22, 0.84); P=0.01]. However, there was no statistically significant difference for the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score nor for ROM of the elbow (flexion-extension arc). Overall, compared with the ORIF group, the RHA group had better forearm rotational ROM and fewer complications after surgery. Therefore, RHA was found to be superior to ORIF in the treatment of TTIE.

Does an Internal Joint Stabilizer and Standardized Protocol Prevent Recurrent Instability in Complex Persistent Elbow Instability?

BACKGROUND

The treatment of complex persistent elbow instability after trauma is challenging. Previous studies on treatments have reported varied surgical techniques, which makes it difficult to establish a therapeutic algorithm. Furthermore, the surgical procedures may not sufficiently restore elbow stability, even with an additional device, and a noted high rate of arthritis progression.While a recently developed internal joint stabilizer effectively treats elbow instability, its clinical application for complex persistent elbow instability is limited and the standardized protocol is not well described. Additionally, we want to know whether the arthritis progression will cause a negative impact on the functional outcomes of complex persistent elbow instability.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does treatment of complex persistent elbow instability with a hinged internal joint stabilizer and a standardized protocol prevent recurrent instability and other complications? (2) What are the pre- to postoperative improvements in pain, disability, elbow performance, and ROM? (3) Is the development of post-traumatic arthritis associated with worse pain, disability, elbow performance, and ROM?

METHODS

Between September 2014 and October 2019, we treated 22 patients for persistent dislocation or subluxation after initial treatment of traumatic elbow fracture-dislocations. Of those, we considered patients who were at least 20 years of age, with an interval of 6 weeks or more between the injury (initial treatment) and the index reconstructive procedure, which had been performed at our institute, as potentially eligible. During that time, we used an internal joint stabilizer with a standardized protocol for posttraumatic complex persistent elbow instability. We performed total elbow replacements in patients older than 50 years who had advanced elbow arthritis. Based on that, 82% (18 of 22) of patients were eligible; 14% (3 of 22) were excluded because total elbow replacements was undertaken, and another 5% (1 of 22) were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 1 year (median 24 months [range 12 to 63]), leaving 64% (14 of 22) for analysis in this retrospective study. We treated 14 patients (14 elbows) with posttraumatic complex persistent elbow instability with an internal joint stabilizer and a standardized protocol that comprised debridement arthroplasty with ulnar neurolysis, restoration of bony and ligamentous (reattachment) structures, application of an internal joint stabilizer, and early rehabilitation. There were eight men and six women in this study, with a median (range) age of 44 years (21 to 68). The initial elbow fracture-dislocation injury pattern was a terrible triad injury in seven patients, a posterolateral rotatory injury in four patients, and a posterior Monteggia fracture in three patients. Preoperative and follow-up radiographs were reviewed for evidence of recurrent instability and arthritis. Complications such as wound infection, seroma, neurovascular injury, and hardware complications were ascertained through chart review. Preoperative and postoperative VAS score for pain, DASH, and Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MEPS) were collected and compared. Furthermore, extension-flexion and supination-pronation arcs were collected by chart review. We divided the patients into two groups according to whether or not they developed posttraumatic arthritis. We then presented the differences between pain, disability, elbow performance, and ROM. The hinged internal joint stabilizer was removed using another open procedure under general anesthesia 6 to 8 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

There were no recurrent instability during and after device removal. Seven patients developed complications, including wound infection, seroma, neurovascular injury, hardware complications, and heterotopic ossification. Two patients had complications related to internal joint stabilizers and three had complications linked to radial head prostheses. Median (range) preoperative to postoperative changes included decreased pain (VAS 5 [2 to 9] to 0 [0 to 3], difference of medians -5; p < 0.001), decreased disability (DASH 41 [16 to 66] to 7 [0 to 46], difference of medians -34; p < 0.001), improved function (MEPS 60 [25 to 70] to 95 [65 to 100], difference of medians 35; p < 0.001), improved extension-flexion arc (40° [10° to 70°] to 113° [75° to 140°], difference of medians 73°; p < 0.001), and supination-pronation arc (78° [30° to 165°] to 148° [70° to 175°], difference of medians 70°; p < 0.001). Between patients with and without development of post-traumatic arthritis, there were no differences in postoperative pain (VAS 0 [0 to 3] to 0 [0 to 1], difference of medians 0; p = 0.17), disability (DASH 7 [0 to 46] to 7 [0 to 18], difference of medians 0; p = 0.40), function (MEPS 80 [65 to 100] to 95 [75 to 100], difference of medians 15; p = 0.79), extension-flexion arc (105° [75° to 140°] to 115° [80° to 125°], difference of medians 10°; p = 0.40), and supination-pronation arc (155° [125° to 175°] to 135° [70° to 160°], difference of medians -20°; p < 0.18).

CONCLUSION

In this small, retrospective study, we found that an internal joint stabilizer with a standardized treatment protocol could maintain concentric reduction while allowing early functional motion, and that it could improve clinical outcomes for patients with complex persistent elbow instability. However, patients must be counseled that the complications related to the radial head prostheses may occur, and that the benefits of early motion must compensate for an additional removal procedure and the risk of seroma formation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Monteggia fractures: analysis of patient-reported outcome measurements in correlation with ulnar fracture localization

BACKGROUND

Monteggia fractures and Monteggia-like lesions result after severe trauma and have high complication rates. Preliminary biomechanical studies suggested a correlation between ulnar fracture localization and clinical result.

OBJECTIVES

Key objective was to evaluate whether the site of the ulnar fracture can be correlated to clinical outcome after open reduction and internal stabilization.

METHODS

In a retrospective, monocentric study 35 patients who underwent surgical treatment after suffering a Monteggia injury or Monteggia-like lesion were included. Fractures were classified according to Bado and Jupiter, the site of the fracture location at the proximal ulna and regarding the potential accompanying ligamentary injury. In a follow-up examination validated patient-reported outcome measures and functional parameters were evaluated. Furthermore, treatment strategy and complications were analysed.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 51.9 years (± 18.0). 69% were females (n = 24). Follow-up took place after 50.5 months (± 22.1). Fractures were classified according to Bado (I:2, II:27, III:4, IV:2). Bado II-fractures were further classified according to Jupiter (A:7, B:16, C:3, D:1). Cases were divided into subgroups depending upon the distance of the ulnar fracture site in respect to its distal endpoint (A: < 7 cm and B: > 7 cm). Average overall MEPS was 84.1 (± 19.0). Oxford elbow score and DASH were 37.2 (± 10.5) and 20.4 (± 20.5). Average extension capability reached - 7° (± 7.5). Mean flexion was 134.8° (± 19.7). Average pain according to visual analogue scale was 1.6 (± 1.9). We found no differences between the subgroups regarding the PROMs. Subgroup A displayed a worse extension capability (p = 0.027) and patients were significantly older (p < 0.01). Comparing patients with and without fracture of the radial head, we observed no differences. Patients with an accompanying injury of the coronoid process displayed higher pain levels (p = 0.011), a worse functionality (p = 0.027) and overall lower scoring in PROM.

CONCLUSION

The presented results suggest that in Monteggia fractures and Monteggia-like lesions, the localization of the ulna fracture can give a hint for its postoperative outcome. However, we could not confirm the hypothesis of an increasing instability in ulnar fractures located further distally (high severity of the potential ligamentous injury). Intraarticular fractures or injuries with a close relation to the joint have a worse prognosis, especially if the coronoid process is injured. Trial registration Registration was done with ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT05325268.

Clinical comparison of the over-the-top and flexor carpi ulnaris split approaches for the treatment of anteromedial facet fracture of the coronoid process

BACKGROUND

The flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU)-split approach and the over-the-top approach have been used frequently for the fixation of anteromedial facet (AMF) fractures of the coronoid process. Clinical studies have not compared functional recovery and complication rates associated with these approaches. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of the over-the-top and FCU-split approaches for the treatment of AMF fractures of the coronoid process.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients who underwent surgery for AMF fractures between January 2013 and August 2019 were divided into the FCU-split and over-the-top groups. The FCU-split approach was used from January 2013 to March 2016, and the over-the-top approach was used from April 2016 to August 2019. Bony union, radiographic signs of osteoarthritis (Broberg and Morrey classification), and development of heterotopic ossification were evaluated. Postoperative pain score (visual analog scale at 2 days after the operation), surgical time (minutes), range of motion of the elbow, elbow function (Mayo Elbow Performance Score [MEPS]), and the presence of postoperative ulnar neuropathy were also compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The FCU-split and over-the-top approaches were performed in 15 and 17 patients, respectively. The mean age was 46 ± 13 years (range, 22-67 years), and the mean follow-up duration was 19± 6.7 months (range, 13-38 months). All coronoid fractures had a solid osseous union during the follow-up, and no subluxation or dislocation was observed in the 2 groups. The occurrence of heterotopic ossification and the grade of post-traumatic arthritis did not differ significantly between the groups (all P > .05). There were also no significant differences between the groups in terms of postoperative pain score, range of motion, and MEPS (all P > .05). However, the surgical time was shorter for the over-the-top approach than that for the FCU-split approach (79± 23 vs. 101 ± 14, P = .008), and the surgical time was significantly associated with the fracture classification and surgical approach (P = .001 and .003, respectively). In addition, postoperative ulnar neuropathy occurred less with the over-the-top approach than with the FCU-spilt approach (5.9% vs. 46%, P = .013).

CONCLUSION

Both the FCU-split and over-the-top approaches were appropriate for performing the buttress plate fixation for AMF fractures of the coronoid process and for restoring the elbow stability. The fixation of AMF fractures through the over-the-top approach was technically easier and had less incidence of postoperative ulnar neuropathy.