The adjunct use of lateral hinged external fixator in the treatment of traumatic destabilizing elbow injuries

Comparative study of open elbow arthrolysis with and without hinge external fixation for the treatment of post-traumatic elbow stiffness

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to compare the functional outcomes of hinged external fixators and non-external fixation in open elbow arthrolysis (OEA) for post-traumatic elbow stiffness (PTES) and to evaluate their applicability and limitations in patients with posttraumatic elbow stiffness.

METHODS

The clinical data of patients with PTES treated with OEA at our hospital between March 2015 and June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The assessed variables were the operation time, intraoperative blood loss volume, duration of hospitalization, and treatment costs. The elbow range of motion (ROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (Q-DASH) score, Oxford Elbow score (OES), Broberg and Morrey score (BMS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and complications such as pin tract infection and heterotopic ossification were compared between patients with and without hinge external fixation. We also compared the baseline characteristics and functional outcomes of patients with and without hinge external fixation.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients (48 patients with hinged external fixators and 108 patients without external fixators) diagnosed with PTES were included in this study. The mean follow-up was 15.8 ± 3.6 months. Compared with patients without external fixators, those with external fixators showed significantly greater improvements in elbow flexion and extension ROM (59.6° ± 26.1° vs. 46.2° ± 26.2°, p = 0.004) but had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization (p < 0.001), significantly longer operation time (p < 0.001), significantly higher treatment costs (p < 0.001), and significantly greater intraoperative blood loss volume (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of improvement in elbow rotation ROM, MEPS score, VAS score for pain, OES score, Q-DASH score, BMS score, or incidence of complications.

CONCLUSION

The use of a hinged external fixator in open arthrolysis for posttraumatic elbow stiffness may result in short-term improvements in flexion-extension range of motion but is accompanied by increased blood loss, longer operative time, extended hospitalization, and higher costs. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

Not applicable.

Safety and effectiveness of the three-dimensional-printed guide plate-assisted rotation axis positioning of a hinged external fixator for the elbow

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of three-dimensional (3D)-printed guide plates for assisting in the positioning of the rotation axis of an elbow-hinged external fixator.

METHODS

Terrible triad (TT) patients, who were screened using the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, underwent installation of a hinged external fixator on the basis of internal fixation; 3D-printed guide plates, generated from the patient's imaging data, assisted in positioning the rotation axis. All patients received the same peri-operative management and were followed up at six, 12, 24, and 48 weeks postoperatively. The duration of positioning pin placement, the number of fluoroscopies, pin placement success rate, types and incidence of post-operative complications, and the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) of the diseased elbow and range of motion (ROM) of both elbows were assessed.

RESULTS

In 25 patients who completed the follow-up, the average time required for positioning pin placement was 329.32 ± 42.38 s (263-443 s), the average number of fluoroscopies was 2.32 ± 0.48 times (2-3 times), and the pin placement success rate was 100%. At the last follow-up, the mean MEPS of the diseased elbow was 97.50 ± 6.92 (75-100), with an excellent and good rate of 100%, and all patients demonstrated stable concentric reduction. The average range of flexion and extension was 135.08° ± 17.10° (77-146°), while the average range of rotation was 169.21° ± 18.14° (108-180°). No significant difference was observed in the average ROM between the both elbows (P > 0.05). Eight (32%) patients developed post-operative complications, including elbow stiffness due to heterotopic ossification in three (12%) patients, all of whom did not require secondary intervention.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing 3D-printed guide plates for positioning the rotation axis of an elbow-hinged external fixator significantly reduced intra-operative positioning pin placement time and the number of fluoroscopies with excellent positioning results. Satisfactory results were also obtained in terms of post-operative complications, elbow ROM, and functional scores.

Hinged External Fixation Combined with Open Debridement for Post-traumatic Elbow Stiffness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Open debridement remains the gold standard for the clinical treatment of post-traumatic elbow stiffness. However, postoperative complications, such as re-contraction and heterotopic ossification of the elbow joint, are highly prevalent. Hinged external fixation appears to offer the potential for greater improvement of joint function and reduction of complications. The purpose of this article is to provide the latest evidence on the effectiveness and safety of hinged external fixation combined with open debridement for the treatment of post-traumatic elbow stiffness.

Methods

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until December 31, 2022. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyze all the data for this article. The quality of the included articles was evaluated using the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook 5.3.

Results

Finally, we selected 8 high-quality RCTs for our meta-analysis, which included 555 patients. The meta-analysis demonstrated that hinged external fixation combined with open debridement for post-traumatic elbow stiffness (treatment group) showed a significant increase in elbow flexion and extension mobility (WMD = 5.16, 95% CI 4.39-5.49, Z = 13.02, P = 0.000), Mayo elbow function scores (WMD = 5.25, 95% CI 4.33-6.17, Z = 11.15, P = 0.000), and Mayo excellent rate (RR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.37, Z = 4.87, P = 0.000). Additionally, there was a significant decrease in the complication rate (RR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20, Z = 2.54, P = 0.011) compared to open debridement alone (control group). Furthermore, the results of the publication bias test showed no significant bias.

Conclusions

With the assistance of hinged external fixation, open debridement for post-traumatic elbow stiffness can lead to increased elbow mobility and a reduced complication rate. However, due to the small sample size, a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a larger sample size is still necessary to further confirm the effectiveness and safety of hinged external fixation combined with open debridement for post-traumatic elbow stiffness.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-023-01087-y.

The Internal Joint Stabilizer of the Elbow: A Systematic Review of the Clinical and Biomechanical Evidence

Purpose

The goal of surgical management for unstable elbow injuries is the restoration of joint concentricity and stability. After internal fixation, concerns may exist regarding instability or durability of the fixation construct. Historically, these scenarios were treated with options such as transarticular pinning or external fixation. Recently, an internal joint stabilizer (IJS) that allows postoperative mobilization was introduced. Our objective was to systematically review the literature to aggregate the clinical and biomechanical evidence for the IJS of the elbow.

Methods

A systematic review of the PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed, following the PRISMA guidelines. The search results were narrowed from 2015 through 2023 to coincide with the inception of the device being reviewed.

Results

A total of nine retrospective reports on the IJS (N = 171) cases at a mean follow-up of 10.8 months were included. The pooled rate of implant failure was 4.4%, and recurrent instability was 4.1%. Additionally, the we included seven case reports and two biomechanical reports.

Conclusions

The aggregate literature describes satisfactory clinical outcomes with low rates of recurrent instability and device failure for the IJS of the elbow. The limited biomechanical investigations conclude efficacy for stability profiles.

Clinical relevance

Across a spectrum of unstable elbow cases, the IJS prevented recurrent instability during the early postoperative period. Notably, the device requires an additional procedure for removal, and the long-term impact of the retained devices is currently unclear.

Improved Understanding of Traumatic Complex Elbow Instability

Recent advancements in surgical treatment have improved clinical results in complex traumatic elbow injury. There is increasing recognition that conservative treatment and inadequate surgical fixation carry high risk of substantial morbidity in many of these cases. Recent literature displays improved outcomes in complex elbow instability, in part, because of a more complete comprehension of the injury patterns and fixation methods. Prompt surgical management with stable internal fixation, which permits immediate postoperative mobilization, has been a consistent variable across the reports leading to more satisfactory outcomes. This applies to both acute and chronic cases.

Elbow Kinematics and Function Following Treatment with Open Arthrolysis and Hinged External Fixator

OBJECTIVE

Open arthrolysis (OA) combined with hinged external fixator (HEF) is a promising surgical option for patients with elbow stiffness. This study aimed to investigate elbow kinematics and function following a combined treatment with OA and HEF in elbow stiffness cases.

METHODS

Patients treated with OA with or without HEF due to elbow stiffness were recruited between August 2017 and July 2019. Elbow flexion-extension motion and function (Mayo elbow performance scores, MEPS) were recorded and compared between patients with and without HEF during a 1-year follow-up period. Additionally, those with HEF were assessed by dual fluoroscopy at week 6 postoperatively. Flexion-extension and varus-valgus motions, as well as ligament insertion distances of the anterior medial collateral ligament (AMCL) and lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL), were compared between the surgical and intact sides.

RESULTS

This study included 42 patients, of which 12 with HEF demonstrated a similar flexion-extension angle and range of motion (ROM) and MEPS as the other patients. In patients with HEF, the surgical elbows showed limitations in flexion-extension (maximal flexion, 120.5° ± 5.3° vs 140.4° ± 6.8°; maximal extension, 13.1° ± 6.0° vs 6.4° ± 3.0°; ROM, 107.4° ± 9.9° vs 134.0° ± 6.8°; all Ps < 0.01) compared with the contralateral sides. During elbow flexion, a gradual valgus-to-varus transition of the ulna, increase in the AMCL insertion distance, and steady change in the LUCL insertion distance were observed, with no significant differences between the bilateral sides.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with OA and HEF demonstrated similar elbow flexion-extension motion and function to those treated with OA alone. Although the use of HEF could not restore an intact flexion-extension ROM and might result in some minor but not significant changes in kinematics, it contributed to clinical outcomes comparable to that of the treatment with OA alone.