Primary Hinged External Fixation of Terrible Triad Injuries and Olecranon Fracture-Dislocations of the Elbow

Reported outcome measures in complex fracture elbow dislocations: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Complex elbow fracture dislocations, dislocation with fracture of one or several surrounding bony stabilizers, are difficult to manage and associated with poor outcomes. While many studies have explored treatment strategies but a lack of standardization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) makes cross-study comparison difficult. In this systematic review, we aim to describe what injury patterns, measured outcomes, and associated complications are reported in the complex elbow fracture dislocation literature to provide outcome reporting recommendations that will facilitate improved future cross-study comparison.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles published between 2010 and 2022 reporting on adult patients who had a complex elbow fracture dislocation. Pathologic fractures were excluded. A bias assessment using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies criteria was conducted. For each article, patient demographics, injury pattern, outcome measures, and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Ninety-one studies reporting on 3664 elbows (3654 patients) with an elbow fracture and dislocation (weighted mean age 44 years, follow-up of 30 months, 41% female) were evaluated. Of these, the injury pattern was described in 3378 elbows and included 2951 (87%) terrible triad injuries and 72 (2%) transolecranon fracture-dislocations. The three most commonly reported classification systems were: Mason classification for radial head fractures, Regan and Morrey coronoid classification for coronoid fractures, and O'Driscoll classification for coronoid fractures. Range of motion was reported in 87 (96%) studies with most reporting flexion (n = 70), extension (n = 62), pronation (n = 68), or supination (n = 67). Strength was reported in 11 (12%) studies. PROMs were reported in 83 (91%) studies with an average of 2.6 outcomes per study. There were 14 outcome scores including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (n = 69 [83%]), the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score (n = 28 [34%]), the visual analog scale for pain (n = 27 [33%]), QuickDASH score (n = 13 [15.7%]), and Oxford Elbow score (n = 5 [6.0%]). No significance was found between the number of PROMs used per article and the year of publication (P = .313), study type (P = .689), complex fracture pattern (P = .211), or number of elbows included (P = .152).

CONCLUSION

There is great heterogeneity in reported PROMs in the complex elbow fracture dislocation literature. Although there is no gold standard PROM for assessing complex elbow fracture dislocations, we recommend the use of at least the Mayo Elbow Performance Score and DASH outcomes measures as well as visual analog scale pain rating scale in future studies to facilitate cross-study comparisons.

External fixation about the elbow: Indications and long-term outcomes

Background

Operative management is often required for fractures of the elbow, with treatment goals aiming to restore stability, reduction, and early range of motion. The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors for necessitating the application of an external fixator, and to compare range of motion and functional outcomes between patients who required an elbow external fixator to those who did not.

Hypothesis

We hypothesize that patients who require an external fixator will have worse elbow range of motion and functional outcomes when compared to those who did not.

Patients and methods

This is a retrospective study of 391 patients who presented at a Level-I trauma center between March 2011 and January 2021 for operative management of a fracture/fracture-dislocation of the distal humerus (AO/OTA 13A-C) and/or proximal ulna and/or radius (AO/OTA 21A-C). A primary analysis was performed to determine risk factors for necessitating the application of an external fixator. A secondary analysis was performed comparing elbow range-of-motion and functional outcomes between cases and controls.

Results

391 patients were identified; 26 required external fixation (cases) and 365 did not (controls). Significant risk factors for necessitating placement of an external fixator included large BMI (OR = 1.087, 95 % CI = 1.007-1.173, p = 0.033), elbow dislocation (OR = 7.549, 95 % CI = 2.387-23.870, p = 0.001), open wound status (OR = 9.584, 95 % CI = 2.794-32.878, p < 0.001), and additional non-contiguous orthopaedic injury (OR = 9.225, 95 % CI = 2.219-38.360, p = 0.002). Elbow ROM was poorer in the external fixator group with regards to extension (-15°), flexion (+19.4°), and pronation (+14.3°) (p < 0.05). In addition, those who did not need external fixation had better functional scores (+20.4 points MEPI) (p < 0.05).

Discussion

The use of external fixation about the elbow is associated with significantly worse initial injuries and results in poorer outcomes. These results can be used to inform the surgeon-patient discussion regarding treatment options and expected functional outcomes.

Level of evidence

III.

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 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.

[Mid-term effectiveness of arthrolysis and hinged external fixation for treatment of stiff elbow caused by heterotrophic ossification]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the mid-term effectiveness of arthrolysis and hinged external fixation for the treatment of stiff elbow caused by heterotrophic ossification.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and December 2017, 11 patients with stiff elbow caused by heterotrophic ossification were admitted. There were 9 males and 2 females with an average age of 32 years (range, 14-48 years), and left side in 6 cases and right side in 5 cases. The cause of stiff elbow included humerus fracture in 5 cases, ulna fracture in 2 cases, fracture of capitulum radii in 1 case, dislocation of capitulum radii in 1 case, terrible triad of the elbow in 1 case, and soft tissue injury in 1 case. The disease duration ranged from 7 to 18 months (mean, 11 months). Preoperative active range of motion of elbow was (19.6±17.5)° and Mayo score was 34.1±9.7. All patients received the treatment of arthrolysis and debridement of heterotrophic ossification lesion combining hinged external fixator, and active and passive rehabilitation with the help of hinged external fixator. The hinged external fixators were removed after 2 months.

RESULTS

All patients were followed up 13-36 months (mean, 19.1 months). All incisions healed by first intention, and no complication of infection or nerve lesion occurred postoperatively. At last follow-up, the results of X-ray films showed that no heterotrophic ossification recurred. The active range of motion of elbow was (116.4±16.6)° and Mayo score was 93.2±7.8, showing significant differences when compared with preoperative ones ( t=17.508, P=0.000; t=16.618, P=0.000).

CONCLUSION

The application of arthrolysis and debridement of heterotrophic ossification lesion combining hinged external fixator can improve the elbow's range of motion significantly and obtain a good mid-term effectiveness.