Open arthrolysis for elbow stiffness increases carrying angle but has no impact on functional recovery

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.

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

HYPOTHESIS

Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty for stage III osteoarthritis (advanced stage) shows worse clinical and radiologic outcomes compared with stage I or II according to computed tomography (CT)-based classification.

METHODS

Clinical and radiologic outcomes in 65 patients treated with arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty were retrospectively analyzed for range of motion (ROM) arc, functional score (Mayo Elbow Performance Score [MEPS]), and pain score (visual analog scale [VAS]). Patients were classified into stage I or II (n = 44) and stage III (n = 21) groups according to CT-based classification, and postoperative clinical outcomes and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up duration was 32.9 ± 13.7 months (range, 24-69). The average patient age was 52 ± 10 years (range, 40-63). Improvements from preoperative to final follow-up were seen in the overall ROM-flexion from 94° ± 19° to 129° ± 14° (P < .01), ROM-extension from 25° ± 12° to 14° ± 7° (P < .01), MEPS from 45 ± 13 to 78 ± 14 (P < .01), and VAS score from 6.3 ± 1.6 to 3.1 ± 1.4 (P < .01). Subgroup analysis using the CT-based classification revealed that stage III led to worsened VAS score and MEPS than stage I or II.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty can be recommended for its favorable overall treatment outcomes for elbow osteoarthritis. However, stage III shows worse clinical and radiologic outcomes compared with stage I or II according to CT-based classification.

Surgical outcomes for post-traumatic stiffness after elbow fracture: comparison between open and arthroscopic procedures for intra- and extra-articular elbow fractures

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty has a comparable outcome to that of the corresponding open procedure.

METHODS

Patients treated with osteocapsular arthroplasty for post-traumatic stiffness were assigned to open procedure (OPEN) and arthroscopic procedure (ARTHRO) groups. The clinical outcomes were measured based on range of motion (ROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and visual analog scale (VAS) score. Based on the initial trauma, the patients were grouped into either intra-articular fracture (I) or extra-articular fracture (E) groups, followed by comparison of the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The overall, ROM, VAS, and MEPS scores showed improvement in both groups. Preoperative VAS scores improved from 6.6 ± 1.4 to 2.2 ± 0.9 following OPEN and from 6.5 ± 1.2 to 2.1 ± 1.0 following ARTHRO. Preoperative flexion improved from 88° ± 14° to 113° ± 17° following OPEN and from 102° ± 15° to 122° ± 8° following ARTHRO. Preoperative extension improved from 36° ± 14° to 17° ± 12° following OPEN and from 30° ± 8° to 15° ± 7.4° following ARTHRO. Preoperative MEPS improved from 48.9 ± 11.5 to 80.0 ± 14.8 following OPEN and from 52.3 ± 12.2 to 80.8 ± 7.9 following ARTHRO. All values for the clinical outcomes were worse in group I than in group E.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty is comparable to the corresponding open procedure with regard to the use of our indications. The clinical outcomes in the intra-articular fracture group as a previous trauma were worse than those in the extra-articular fracture group.

Clinical Outcome of Osteocapsular Arthroplasty for Primary Osteoarthritis of the Elbow: Comparison of Arthroscopic and Open Procedure

PURPOSE

To compare clinical and radiologic outcomes following open (OPEN) and arthroscopic (ARTHRO) osteocapsular arthroplasty for primary elbow osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Patients treated with osteocapsular arthroplasty between January 2010 and December 2015 were divided into OPEN and ARTHRO groups. OPEN was performed from January 2010 to October 2012, and ARTHRO from November 2012 to December 2015. OPEN and ARTHRO were performed in 35 and 52 elbows, respectively. Clinical outcome was measured using range of motion (ROM) arc, functional score (Mayo Elbow Performance Score [MEPS]), and pain score (visual analog scale [VAS]). Conventional radiography was used for outcome analysis. Outcomes were analyzed according to ulnohumeral joint (UHJ) narrowing using the computed tomography-based modified Broberg and Morrey classification.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up time was 36.6 ± 14.4 (24-89) and 35.4 ± 14.2 (24-83) months following OPEN and ARTHRO, respectively. Average ages were 50.0 ± 7.0 (40-63) and 52.4+10.4 (41-75) years in OPEN and ARTHRO groups, respectively. Overall scores for ROM (preoperative to final follow-up: 65.5° ± 22.8 to 112.0° ± 50.9, P < .01), MEPS (42.9 ± 13.7 to 73.7 ± 16.6, P < .01), and VAS (6.6 ± 1.3 to 4.0 ± 2.3, P < .01) were improved. Preoperative ROM improved from 64.0° ± 23.3 to 118.0° ± 17.8 following OPEN and 66.5° ± 22.6 to 108.0° ± 24.0 following ARTHRO. Preoperative MEPS improved from 40.7 ± 15.6 to 73.6 ± 16.7 following OPEN and 44.3 ± 12.2 to 73.8 ± 16.7 following ARTHRO. Preoperative VAS improved from 6.9 ± 1.2 to 3.9 ± 2.6 following OPEN and 6.4 ± 1.3 to 4.1 ± 2.0 following arthro. In both groups, the last follow-up VAS score and MEPS were worse in the narrowing group (UHJ <2 mm, grades 2 and 3) than in the intact group (UHJ >2 mm, grade 1) (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty is comparable to the OPEN procedure in managing primary osteoarthritis of the elbow; however, the OPEN procedure shows the better outcome in improvement of flexion limitation. Neither procedures can guarantee an excellent outcome in the patients with severe UHJ narrowing.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Polyaxial locking plates in treating distal humeral fractures: a comparative randomized trial for clinical outcome

Background

Management of distal humeral fractures remains to be one of the most challenging aspects in trauma surgery. Low profile plating systems with variable angle screw fixation represent a crucial advancement to the established angular stable locking plates with considerable attention in current research. The aim of the prospective randomized trial was to review the preliminary results and patients’ outcome following treatment with these newly developed implants and to rule out potential differences in fracture treatment of two different plating systems.

Methods

Twenty patients with distal humeral fractures (AO 13-A1 – AO 13-C3) were included in the current study since 2014. After completing the randomization plan, patients were distributed into two groups for different variable angle locking plates (DePuy Synthes® VA-LCP vs. Medartis® Aptus Elbow). Functional elbow scoring (ROM, MEPS, QuickDASH) served as primary outcome parameter, while radiological fracture consolidation served as secondary outcome parameter. Follow-ups were conducted 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months and 12 months after the operation.

Results

Seventeen of 20 patients (85%) concluded all follow-up examinations. Postoperative elbow extension deficiencies showed significant differences between the two groups in all follow-up examinations with a mean of Ø 18 +/− 7.4 degrees in the DePuy Synthes® VA-LCP group compared to a mean of Ø 6.5 +/− 7.5 degrees in the Medartis® Aptus Elbow group (p = 0.002) 12 months postoperatively. Functional scoring showed a disparate pattern. The Medartis® Aptus Elbow group achieved significantly better MEP scores during follow-up. However, the analysis of the QuickDash revealed better results of the DePuy Synthes® VA-LCP group in the first half and better results of the Medartis® Aptus Elbow group in the second half of the follow-up examination instead.

Conclusions

Considering the complexity of distal humeral fractures, the usage of anatomically preshaped low profile variable angle locking plates for operative treatment leads to good clinical results. Even though there might be some advances of the Medartis® Aptus Elbow plating system concerning postoperative ROM and elbow function, a consistent difference in the overall clinical outcome between the two plating systems could not be detected.

Trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03272490 Retrospectively Registered 1. September 2017.