[Treatment of complex elbow injuries with the hinged fixation device DJD II. Technique and results]

Prospective clinical results of an additive ligament bracing for stabilizing simple and complex elbow instabilities

INTRODUCTION

Ligament bracing augments ligament repair using a non-absorbable suture tape. Although biomechanically an increase in primary stability has been proven, there is a lack of clinical evidence. Purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical results of patients treated with ligament bracing due to primary elbow instability, including an analysis of complications. Furthermore, clinical results for patients treated with and without early functional mobilization were compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective case-series evaluated clinical and functional results from patients treated with ligament bracing due to primary elbow instability. Clinical outcome measures were range of motion (ROM) as well as objective and subjective elbow scores [Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS); Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH score)]. Stability was evaluated sonographically by humero-radial gapping under varus stress.

RESULTS

This study involved 34 patients treated with ligament bracing. After a mean follow-up of 12.9 months ROM was 112° ± 29, MEPS 88 ± 13 points, DASH 91 ± 11 points, and 84% were satisfied with their result. Lateral joint gapping was 2.4 mm. No significant difference was observed regarding a postoperative mobilization with and without limitations. Most common complication after ligament bracing was elbow stiffness including heterotopic ossifications in four patients (12%).

CONCLUSION

Operatively treated elbow instability with additional ligament bracing results in good clinical outcomes with high patient satisfaction and recovery of elbow stability. The high primary stability of the ligament bracing allows early functional mobilization without bracing, which facilitates postoperative rehabilitation. Elbow stiffness with heterotopic ossification seems to be a potential complication. Furthermore, the optimal tensioning of the ligament bracing remains challenging, including the risk of an over tensioning.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Outcome after surgical treatment of complex elbow fractures: a single-center follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

Elbow injuries present particular challenges for the treating surgeons. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the postoperative outcome after surgical treatment of complex elbow fractures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis with subsequent clinical follow-up examination of all patients with complex elbow fractures admitted to our level I trauma center over a 6-year period. The patients were stratified into three groups: single fractures of the proximal forearm (olecranon fractures type Mayo IIB, radial head fractures type Mason II-IV), distal humerus fractures (AO type C1-3), and combined injures. The clinical examination included the range of motion, grip strength measured with a Jamar dynamometer, DASH and MEP score.

RESULTS

Overall, 39 patients with complex elbow fractures were included in the study. Twelve patients presented with a distal, intra-articular humerus fracture, 16 patients had an isolated proximal forearm fracture and 11 patients suffered multiple fractures. The functional scores showed good overall results, with a median DASH score of 6.7 points and median MEP score of 85.0 points. The median extension deficit in the elbow joint was 15.0° (mean 16.2° ± 12.8°), the median flexion deficit was 5.0° (9.8° ± 12.3°) and the median pronation/supination (overall rotation) deficit was 5.0° (16.7° ± 23.6°). Patients with intra-articular distal humerus fractures showed a significantly increased extension and flexion deficit compared to the other groups.

CONCLUSION

The surgical treatment of complex elbow fractures was associated with good to excellent clinical results. However, distal intra-articular humerus fractures presented the most prominent loss of elbow motion in the follow-up examination.