Temporary Bridge Plate Stabilization of Unstable Elbow Fractures and Dislocations

Ulnohumeral Cross-Pinning in the Management of Traumatic Elbow Instability

PURPOSE

Traumatic elbow instability (subluxation and dislocation) represents a challenging clinical entity that can be complicated by persistent intraoperative instability after attempted stabilization or recurrent postoperative instability. Both static and dynamic supplemental stabilization procedures have been described for cases where fracture fixation and ligament repair fail to restore stability. There is a paucity of prior studies involving ulnohumeral cross-pinning (UCP), which is a type of static supplemental stabilization. Our purpose was to assess complications and outcomes after UCP.

METHODS

We reviewed all surgical cases involving primary and revision UCP for traumatic elbow instability at a single center from 2017-2023. Baseline demographics were recorded. Outcomes including radiographs, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients undergoing UCP were included with a mean follow-up of 27 months. Five cross-pinnings (36%) were performed during revision procedures. Mean visual analog scale (VAS) pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores were 2.4, 34, and 69, respectively. The mean flexion-extension and pronation-supination arcs were 114° and 140°, with 85% achieving at least a 100° arc for flexion and forearm rotation. Five patients (36%) had complications, all of which required reoperation. Two complications involved postoperative instability: one radial head subluxation and one radial head dislocation. Both occurred in revision UCP cases indicated for recurrent postoperative instability.

CONCLUSIONS

Ulnohumeral cross-pinning for persistent and recurrent elbow instability results in maintained ulnohumeral joint alignment, functional arcs of elbow range of motion, and acceptable patient-reported outcome measures, particularly in the setting of a primary procedure indicated for persistent intraoperative instability. Ulnohumeral cross-pinning is a reasonable supplemental stabilization procedure for complex elbow instability.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

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.

Postoperative Elbow Instability: Options for Revision Stabilization

Persistent and recurrent postoperative elbow instability includes a spectrum of pathologies ranging from joint incongruity and subluxation to dislocation. Restoration of osseous anatomy, particularly the coronoid, is a priority in restoring elbow alignment and maintaining ulnohumeral joint stability. After managing bony deficiencies, soft-tissue and ligamentous structures are typically addressed. When required, both static and dynamic adjunctive stabilization procedures have been described, which aid in maintaining a concentric reduction. In these complex procedures, both complication avoidance and early recognition of postoperative complications assist in obtaining a good result. In this review, we discuss current treatment options for revision stabilization for patients with persistent and recurrent elbow subluxation or dislocation after primary stabilization.

Finite Element Analysis of Elbow Joint Stability by Different Flexion Angles of the Annular Ligament

Objective

The injury of the annular ligament can change the stress distribution and affect the stability of the elbow joint, but its biomechanical mechanism is unclear. The present study investigated the biomechanical effects of different flexion angles of the annular ligament on elbow joint stability.

Methods

A cartilage and ligament model was constructed using SolidWorks software according to the magnetic resonance imaging results to simulate the annular ligament during normal, loosened, and ruptured conditions at different buckling angles (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, and 120°). The fixed muscle strengths were 40 N (F1), 20 N (F2), 20 N (F3), 20 N (F4), and 20 N (F5) for the triceps, biceps, and brachial tendons and the base of the medial collateral ligament and lateral collateral ligament. The different elbow three‐dimensional (3D) finite element models were imported into ABAQUS software to calculate and analyze the load, contact area, contact stress, and stress of the medial collateral ligament of the olecranon cartilage.

Results

The results showed that the stress value of olecranon cartilage increased under different conditions (normal, loosened, and ruptured annular ligament) with elbow extension, and the maximum stress value of olecranon cartilage was 2.91 ± 0.24 MPa when the annular ligament was ruptured. The maximum contact area of olecranon cartilage was 254  mm² with normal annular ligament when the elbow joint was flexed to 30°, while the maximum contact area of loosened and ruptured annular ligament was 283 and 312 mm² at 60° of elbow flexion, and then decreased gradually. The maximum stress of the medial collateral ligament was 6.52 ± 0.23, 11.51 ± 0.78, and 18.74 ± 0.94 MPa under the different conditions, respectively.

Conclusion

When the annular ligament ruptures, it should be reconstructed as much as possible to avoid the elevation of stress on the surface of the medial collateral ligament of the elbow and the annular cartilage, which may cause clinical symptoms.

Biomechanical comparison of elbow stability constructs

BACKGROUND

Despite surgical stabilization of complex elbow trauma, additional fixation to maintain joint congruity and stability may be required. Multiple biomechanical constructs include a static external fixator (SEF), a hinged external fixator (HEF), an internal joint stabilizer (IJS), and a hinged elbow orthosis (HEO). The optimal adjunct fixation to surgical reduction is yet to be determined.

METHODS

Eight matched cadaveric upper extremities were tested in a biomechanical model. Anteroposterior stress radiographs were obtained of the elbow in full supination at 0° and 45° of elbow flexion with the weight of the hand serving as a varus load as the baseline. A 360° capsuloligamentous soft-tissue release was performed around the elbow. The biomechanical constructs were applied in the same sequential order: SEF, HEF, IJS, and HEO. For each construct, 0 kg (0-lb) and 2.3 kg (5-lb) of weight were applied to the distal arm. At both weights, radiographs were obtained with the elbow at 0° and 45° of flexion, with subsequent measurement of displacement, congruence at the ulnohumeral joint, and the ulnohumeral opening angle. Statistical analysis was performed to quantify the strength and stability of each construct.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group at 0° with and without 2.3 kg (5-lb) of varus force and at 45° with and without 2.3 kg (5-lb) of varus force, no difference was noted in the medial ulnohumeral joint space, lateral ulnohumeral joint space, or ulnohumeral opening angle between the SEF, HEF, and IJS. The gap change after exertion of a 2.3-kg (5-lb) force between the control condition and application of each construct demonstrated no difference between the SEF, HEF, and IJS. Comparison among destabilized elbows showed no significant difference between the SEF, HEF, and IJS. The HEO catastrophically failed in each position at 0 kg (0-lb) of weight.

CONCLUSION

The SEF, HEF, and IJS are neither superior nor inferior at maintaining elbow congruity with the weight of the arm and 2.3 kg (5-lb) of varus stress. The HEO did not provide additional stability to the unstable elbow.

Temporary spanning plate across the elbow for complex fractures of the distal humerus

BACKGROUND

Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) is the gold standard management of fractures of the distal humerus. Stable fixation to allow early mobilization is not always possible in cases with comminuted fracture patterns and bone loss, with a high failure rate. We propose augmentation of internal fixation in these unstable situations with a spanning plate across the elbow to protect the fixation construct temporarily until bone union.

METHODS

Eighteen patients with complex distal humeral fractures were managed with standard ORIF technique augmented with a temporary plate spanning across the elbow as an internal fixator. Cases included were either very distal, comminuted (6 cases) or insufficiency fractures (4 cases) or revision fixation cases (8 cases). The temporary spanning plate was removed as soon as signs of early radiographic union were detected.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were available for final follow up at a mean 28.3 months. The spanning plate was removed after 3.4 months on average. At the final follow-up, the mean elbow total arc of motion was 86.3°. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 80, and the mean Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH) score was 27.

CONCLUSION

Spanning the elbow temporarily with a plate in adjunct to standard ORIF technique is both simple and effective in achieving fracture stability and union and minimizes failure rates after fixation of comminuted, very distal fractures, osteoporotic cases, or revision fixation cases with bone loss.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Therapeutic study.

Risk Factors for the Occurrence and Progression of Posttraumatic Elbow Stiffness: A Case-Control Study of 688 Cases

Background: Elbow stiffness is a severe complication after trauma. Surgical or conservative treatments may be ineffective for restoring functional elbow motion. We aim to evaluate intrinsic and extrinsic factors for the occurrence and severity of elbow stiffness.

Methods: This retrospective case–control study included mild/moderate stiffness, severe stiffness, and non-stiffness groups between January 2011 and December 2017 at a single orthopedic center. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and subgroup analysis were used to evaluate age, gender, body mass index, muscle strength, fracture type and site, injury mechanism, immobilization time, elbow dysfunction time, multiple surgeries, nerve symptoms, physical therapy, smoking and alcohol abuse, and dominant hand of stiff elbow as potential risk factors for the occurrence and severity of elbow stiffness.

Results: There were 461 patients in the stiffness group and 227 patients in the non-stiffness group. The odds ratios (ORs) of the age, muscle strength, and injury mechanism were 0.960, 0.333, and 0.216 for the occurrence of elbow stiffness. In subgroup evaluation, increased cast immobilization time might be a risk factor for patients receiving conservative therapies (OR = 2.02; p = 0.014). In the evaluation on factors for progression of elbow stiffness, “multiple surgeries” might be a risk factor in surgical treatment by subgroup analysis (OR = 1.943; p = 0.026). Nevertheless, alcohol abuse might increase severity of elbow stiffness in conservatively treated patients (OR = 3.082; p = 0.025).

Conclusion: Increased cast immobilization time in the conservative therapy might be a risk factor for stiffness occurrence. Multiple surgeries might be risk factors for stiffness progression. Alcohol abuse potentially increased stiffness severity after conservative treatment.

Ulnohumeral Bridge Plating for Massive Distal Humerus Bone Loss: A Case Report

CASE

Massive bone loss around the elbow is a challenging clinical condition. Short periarticular osseous segments present few reconstructive options in the setting of distal humerus bone loss. We report the case of a 20-year-old man who sustained an open, intra-articular distal humerus fracture with a massive metaphyseal defect of 15 cm after a motorcycle accident. The defect was reconstructed using an induced membrane technique with temporary ulnohumeral bridge plate stabilization.

CONCLUSION

Temporary ulnohumeral spanning plate fixation is a reliable method for periarticular reconstruction in the setting of massive distal humerus bone loss.