Rehabilitation of elbow fractures and dislocations

Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews for Rehabilitation Interventions in Individuals with Upper Limb Fractures: A Mapping Synthesis

Background and Objectives. This overview of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) reports on current evidence on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for persons with upper limb fractures (ULFs), and the quality of the evidence. Materials and Methods. Following the inclusion criteria defined by the World Health Organization, all CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database that were relevant for persons with ULFs were included. A mapping synthesis was used to group outcomes and comparisons of included CSRs, indicating the effect of rehabilitation interventions and the certainty of evidence. Results. A total of three CSRs were included in the evidence map. The certainty of evidence was judged as low to very low. Early occupational and hand therapy, cyclic pneumatic soft tissue compression, and cross-education, when started during immobilization, may improve grip strength and wrist range of motion, with results maintained up to 12 weeks from the cast removal, compared to no intervention. Approaches such as occupational therapy and passive mobilisation, started post-immobilization, are probably safe in terms of secondary complications. However, the overall evidence of rehabilitative interventions related to proximal humeral fractures has been judged insufficient for all the outcomes considered. A paucity of primary studies and CSRs for elbow fractures was noted. Conclusions. This overview provided the effect and the certainty of evidence of rehabilitation interventions available after ULFs using a mapping synthesis. To date, there is a need to further the effectiveness and safety of these interventions for persons with ULFs, improving methodological quality of the research in the field.

Suture tape augmentation of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament increases load to failure in simulated posterolateral rotatory instability

PURPOSE

Simple elbow dislocations are accompanied with lateral ulnar collateral ligament ruptures. For persisting instability, surgery is indicated to prevent chronic posterolateral rotatory instability. After lateral collateral ligament (LCL) complex repair the repair is protected by temporary immobilization, limited range of motion and hinged bracing. Internal bracing is an operative alternative augmenting the LCL repair using non-absorbable suture tapes. However, the stability of LCL repair with and without additional augmentation remains unclear. The hypothesis was that LCL repair with additional suture tape augmentation would improve load to failure. Secondary goal of this study was to evaluate different humeral fixation techniques. A humeral fixation using separate anchors for the LCL repair and the augmentation was not expected to provide superior stability compared to using only one single anchor.

METHODS

Twenty-one elbows were tested. A cyclic varus rotational torque of 0.5-3.5 Nm was applied in 90°, 60°, 30°, and 120° elbow flexion to the intact, torn, and repaired LCLs. The specimens were randomized into three groups: repair alone (group I), repair with additional internal bracing using two anchors (group II), repair using one humeral anchor (group III). A load-to-failure protocol was conducted.

RESULTS

Load to failure was significantly higher in groups II (26.6 Nm; P = 0.017) and III (23.18 Nm; P = 0.038) than in group I (12.13 Nm). No significant difference was observed between group II and III. All specimens lost reduction after LCL dissection by a mean of 4.48° ± 4.99° (range 0.66-15.82). The mean reduction gain after repair was 7.21° ± 4.97° (2.70-21.23; mean over reduction, 2.73°). The laxity was comparable between the intact and repaired LCLs (n.s.), except for varus movements at 30° in group II (P = 0.035) and 30° (P = 0.001) and 120° in group III (P = 0.008) with significantly less laxity. Inserting the ulnar suture anchor showed failure in the thread in 10 cases.

CONCLUSION

LCL repair with additional internal bracing yielded higher load to failure than repair alone. Repair with additional internal bracing for the humeral side using one anchor was sufficient. A higher primary stability would facilitate postoperative management and allow immediate functional treatment. Reducing the number of humeral anchors would save costs.

Clinical evaluation of double-plate osteosynthesis for olecranon fractures: A retrospective case-control study

INTRODUCTION

Single, dorsal plating is a commonly used technique for treating olecranon fractures. Double-plate osteosynthesis is an alternative treatment. Aim of this study was to present the surgical technique using this novel double-plate implant for olecranon fractures and review clinical results, complication rates and revision surgeries. Results were compared to single, dorsal plating.

HYPOTHESIS

Does double-plate osteosynthesis for olecranon fractures improve material's tolerance with respect to osteosynthesis by single dorsal plating?

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between February 2011 and March 2015, we retrospectively evaluated 47 patients who were included in this study: 25 were treated with a low-profile double-plate osteosynthesis and 22 with an anatomically pre-shaped 3.5mm locking compression plate (LCP). The 2 groups were the result of a change of implants in our department in 2013. Patient satisfaction, range of motion, patient related outcome scores (Mayo Elbow Performance Score [MEPS], Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score [DASH]), complications and revision surgeries were evaluated. Results between both implant types were statistically compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 41 months (range: 25-61), the low-profile double-plate group showed a range of motion of 127°, MEPS of 94 and DASH of 6. The 3.5mm LCP group was found to have a range of motion of 130°, MEPS of 96 and DASH of 8. No clinical difference was found between groups. A total of 9 revision surgeries after double-plate osteosynthesis were recorded including seven implant removals and two intraarticular screws. One loosening of a screw without revision surgery was reported. The 3.5mm LCP group had 9 revision surgeries including eight implant removals and one intraarticular screw.

DISCUSSION

Low-profile double-plate osteosynthesis is a safe and effective alternative treatment of olecranon fractures. Subjective and objective clinical outcome measures revealed a low complication rate and excellent results. Still, implant removal due to soft tissue irritation remains an issue. These findings were comparable to common dorsal plate osteosynthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective case-control study.

Surgical revision of radial head fractures: a multicenter retrospective analysis of 466 cases

BACKGROUND

Radial head fractures lead to persisting disability in a considerable number of cases. This study aimed to investigate their most common revision causes and procedures.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study reviewed the cases of 466 adult patients who had undergone surgical revision after operative or nonoperative treatment of a radial head fracture. The initial diagnosis was a Mason type I fracture in 13.0%, Mason type II fracture in 14.6%, Mason type III fracture in 22.8%, Mason type IV fracture in 20.9%, terrible-triad injury in 12.8%, Monteggia-like lesion in 13.1%, and Essex-Lopresti lesion in 2.0%. Initial treatment was nonoperative in 30.2%, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in 44.9%, radial head arthroplasty in 16.6%, radial head resection in 3.7%, sole treatment of concomitant injuries in 2.6%, and fragment excision in 2.0%. Up to 3 revision causes and procedures were recorded per case.

RESULTS

The most common complications were stiffness (67.4%), instability (36.5%), painful osteoarthritis (29.2%), ORIF related (14.8%), nonunion or necrosis (9.2%), radial head arthroplasty related (7.5%), ulnar neuropathy (6.0%), and infection (2.6%). Revision procedures frequently included arthrolysis (42.1%), arthroplasty (24.9%), implant removal (23.6%), ligament repair or reconstruction (23.0%), débridement (14.2%), repeated ORIF (8.2%), and/or radial head resection (7.7%). Mason type I or II fractures were primarily revised because of stiffness and painful osteoarthritis. Complications after Mason type III fractures were predominantly ORIF related. Fracture-dislocations showed a wide range of complications, with instability and stiffness comprising the most common causes of revision.

CONCLUSIONS

The complications of radial head fractures are characteristic to their classification. Knowledge of these findings might guide surgeons in treating these injuries and may help counsel patients accordingly.