Medium-term results of arthroscopic debridement and capsulectomy for the treatment of elbow osteoarthritis

Long-term results of open extensive débridement arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow: what direct examination and computed tomography images revealed

Background

Although open and arthroscopic débridement arthroplasties are major surgical strategies in patients with primary osteoarthritis of the elbow, the long-term results remain inadequately studied. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate long-term clinical and radiographic results after extensive débridement arthroplasty (EDA) for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow.

Methods

Eleven patients with primary osteoarthritis treated with EDA were able to be retrospectively evaluated by direct examination. The mean age of the seven male and four female patients was 56 years (range, 47-74 years). The surgical procedure involved the removal of all osteophytes and free bodies, release of anterior and posterior capsules, fenestration of the olecranon fossa, and excision of the posterior bundle of the ulnar collateral ligament. At a mean follow-up of 15 years, clinical and radiographic outcomes were assessed.

Results

The mean flexion increased significantly from 110.5° to 129.6° postoperatively in the short term and was generally maintained at the final follow-up. Conversely, the mean extension improved significantly from -26.4° to -11.4° postoperatively in the short term; however, at the final examination, it had decreased to -25.5°. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance score, results were excellent for five elbows, good for five, and fair for one. In all cases, postoperative pain was "none" or "mild," and no postoperative complications were observed. In all cases, recurrence of osteophytes was seen, and the fenestration hole of the olecranon fossa remained open in three elbows, was partially refilled in four elbows and was completely refilled in four elbows at the time of the final follow-up. Univariate analysis revealed that among preoperative variables, age, arc of motion, and extension were prognostic factors that significantly affected postoperative extension in the long term.

Conclusions

The present findings indicate that EDA provides marked long-term relief of pain and improved flexion despite the recurrence of restricted extension. Patients with extremely restricted extension preoperatively are at the risk of deteriorated extension over the long term.

Radiologically severe osteoarthritis is related to worse clinical outcomes after arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty in primary elbow osteoarthritis at medium-term follow-up: a retrospective cohort study

HYPOTHESIS

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA) at medium-term follow-up according to the radiologic severity of primary elbow osteoarthritis (OA) and assess serial changes in clinical outcomes in each group.

METHODS

Patients treated from January 2010 to April 2019 with arthroscopic OCA for primary elbow OA with a minimum of 3 years' follow-up were retrospectively assessed regarding range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) preoperatively, at short-term follow-up (3-12 months postoperatively), and at medium-term follow-up (≥3 years after surgery). Preoperative computed tomography was performed to evaluate the radiologic severity of OA using the Kwak classification. Clinical outcomes were compared according to the radiologic severity of OA by their absolute values and the number of patients achieving the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). Serial changes in the clinical outcomes in each subgroup were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 43 patients, 14, 18, and 11 were classified as the stage I, II, and III groups, respectively; the mean follow-up duration was 71.3 ± 28.9 months, and the mean age was 56.5 ± 7.2 years. At medium-term follow-up, the stage I group had a better ROM arc (stage I, 114° ± 14°; stage II, 100° ± 23°; and stage III, 97° ± 20°; P = .067) and VAS pain score (stage I, 0.9 ± 1.3; stage II, 1.8 ± 2.1; and stage III, 2.4 ± 2.1; P = .168) than the stage II and III groups without reaching statistical significance, whereas the stage I group had a significantly better MEPS (stage I, 93.2 ± 7.5; stage II, 84.7 ± 11.9; and stage III, 78.6 ± 15.2; P = .017) than the stage III group. The percentages of patients achieving the PASS for the ROM arc (P = .684) and VAS pain score (P = .398) were comparable between the 3 groups; however, the percentage achieving the PASS for the MEPS was significantly higher in the stage I group than in the stage III group (100.0% vs. 54.5%, P = .016). During serial assessment, all clinical outcomes tended to improve at the short-term follow-up. Compared with the short-term period, the ROM arc tended to decrease at the medium-term follow-up whereas the VAS pain score and MEPS overall did not show significant changes.

CONCLUSION

After arthroscopic OCA, the stage I group showed an overall better ROM arc and pain score than the stage II and III groups at medium-term follow-up, whereas the stage I group showed a significantly better MEPS and higher percentage of patients achieving the PASS for the MEPS than the stage III group.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Osteocapsular Arthroplasty in Primary Elbow Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA) achieves significant medium-term outcomes in patients with primary elbow osteoarthritis (OA); however, outcomes after revision arthroscopic OCA are not well known.

PURPOSE

To assess clinical outcomes after revision arthroscopic OCA as compared with those after primary surgery in patients with OA.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic OCA attributed to primary elbow OA between January 2010 and July 2020 were enrolled. Range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were assessed. Operation time and complications were assessed by chart review. Clinical outcomes between the primary and revision surgery groups were compared, and subgroup analysis for radiologically severe OA was performed.

RESULTS

Data from 61 patients were analyzed (primary, n = 53; revision, n = 8). The mean ± SD age was 56.3 ± 8.5 and 54.3 ± 8.9 years in the primary and revision groups, respectively. The primary group had significantly better ROM arcs preoperatively (89.9°± 20.3° vs 71.3°± 22.3°; P = .021) and postoperatively (112.4°± 17.1° vs 96.9°± 16.5°; P = .019) than the revision group; however, the degree of improvement was comparable (P = .445). Postoperative VAS pain score (P = .164) and MEPS (P = .581) were comparable between the groups, as were the degrees of improvement in VAS pain score (P = .691) and MEPS (P = .604). The revision group required a significantly longer operative time than the primary group (P = .004) and had a nonsignificant higher complication rate (P = .065). Subgroup analysis showed that radiologically severe cases in the primary group had significantly better preoperative (P = .010) and postoperative (P = .030) ROM arcs than the revision group and a comparable postoperative VAS pain score (P = .155) and MEPS (P = .658).

CONCLUSION

Revision arthroscopic OCA is a favorable treatment option for primary elbow OA with recurrent symptoms. Postoperative ROM arc was worse after revision surgery as compared with primary surgery; however, the degree of improvement was comparable. Postoperative VAS pain score and MEPS were comparable with primary surgery.

Serial Changes in Clinical Outcomes After Arthroscopic Osteocapsular Arthroplasty for Primary Elbow Osteoarthritis: A Medium-term Follow-up Study

Background

Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA) shows promising short-term outcomes for primary elbow osteoarthritis (OA). However, serial changes in clinical outcomes for medium-term follow-up are not well known.

Purpose

To evaluate clinical outcomes after arthroscopic OCA in primary elbow OA from preoperative to short- and medium-term follow-up and to analyze the correlation between the time from short- to medium-term follow-up and the changes in clinical outcomes between the periods.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

Patients with primary elbow OA who were treated with arthroscopic OCA between January 2010 and April 2020 were evaluated. Elbow range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were assessed preoperatively and at short-term (3-12 months) and medium-term (≥2 years) follow-up. The correlation between the time from short- to medium-term follow-up and the changes in clinical outcomes was analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results

Included were 56 patients who underwent short-term follow-up (mean [range], 5.9 [3-12] months) and medium-term follow-up (62.2 [24-129] months) after arthroscopic OCA. When compared with preoperative values, significant improvements were seen at short-term follow-up: ROM (from 89.4° to 111.7°; P < .001), VAS for pain (from 4.9 to 2.0; P < .001), and MEPS (from 62.3 to 83.7; P < .001). From short- to medium-term follow-up, ROM decreased (from 111.7° to 105.4°; P = .001) while VAS for pain (from 2.0 to 1.4; P = .031) and MEPS (from 83.7 to 87.8; P = .016) improved. All outcomes improved significantly at medium-term follow-up as compared with preoperative values (P < .001 for all). The time between short- and medium-term follow-up had a significant positive correlation with decreased ROM (r = 0.290; P = .030) and a significant negative correlation with improvement in MEPS (r = -0.274; P = .041).

Conclusion

Serial assessment of patients with primary elbow OA who underwent arthroscopic OCA showed that the clinical outcomes improved from preoperative assessment to short- and medium-term follow-up, although ROM decreased between short- and medium-term follow-up. VAS for pain and MEPS showed continued improvement until medium-term follow-up.

Complications of Elbow Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Elbow arthroscopic surgery has been popularized and has made significant progress during the past 3 decades. The elbow joint is relatively small and is in close proximity to many neurovascular structures. These factors make elbow arthroscopic surgery technically demanding and liable to complications.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the rate of complications after elbow arthroscopic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to July 2021. All clinical studies that reported complications after elbow arthroscopic surgery were included; a total of 1208 articles were initially found. Case reports, reviews, abstracts, imaging studies, technique studies, nonclinical studies, and those not reporting postoperative complications were excluded. Complication rates were pooled across studies and reported as percentages. Complications were expressed as weighted proportions with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 95 studies (14,289 elbows) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall weighted complication rate was 11.0% (95% CI, 8.8%-13.5%), with postoperative stiffness being the most commonly encountered complication (4.5% [95% CI, 2.1%-7.6%]; 158/8818 procedures). The second most encountered complication was the need for subsequent surgery with a weighted proportion of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.6%; 177/8853 procedures) followed by nerve injury with a weighted proportion of 3.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-4.3%; 267/13,725 procedures). The ulnar nerve was the most commonly injured nerve (2.6% [95% CI, 1.9%-3.4%]; 123/6290 procedures).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that elbow arthroscopic surgery is a relatively safe procedure with low complication rates.

Targeted treatment for osteoarthritis: drugs and delivery system

The management of osteoarthritis (OA) is a clinical challenge due to the particular avascular, dense, and occluded tissue structure. Despite numerous clinical reports and animal studies, the pathogenesis and progression of OA are still not fully understood. On the basis of traditional drugs, a large number of new drugs have been continuously developed. Intra-articular (IA) administration for OA hastens the development of targeted drug delivery systems (DDS). OA drugs modification and the synthesis of bioadaptive carriers contribute to a qualitative leap in the efficacy of IA treatment. Nanoparticles (NPs) are demonstrated credible improvement of drug penetration and retention in OA. Targeted nanomaterial delivery systems show the prominent biocompatibility and drug loading-release ability. This article reviews different drugs and nanomaterial delivery systems for IA treatment of OA, in an attempt to resolve the inconsonance between in vitro and in vivo release, and explore more interactions between drugs and nanocarriers, so as to open up new horizons for the treatment of OA.

A Systematic Review of Arthroscopic Versus Open Debridement of the Arthritic Elbow

PURPOSE

To systematically review the available data with regard to clinical and functional outcomes of arthroscopic and open debridement for elbow arthritis to determine the complication rate with transition to arthroscopic surgery.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses protocol, a systematic review was performed including studies reporting clinical and functional outcomes following open or arthroscopic debridement of elbow arthritis. The primary outcome measures analyzed were functional outcome (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), range of motion, and complication rate. Data were extracted for the whole group and then compared between the techniques using ranges and forest plots.

RESULTS

In total, 39 level IV and 3 level III studies with 1097 elbows were eligible for inclusion; 684 elbows were treated using an open technique and 413 using an arthroscopic technique. Regarding functional outcome scores, mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score improved significantly with comparable magnitude of improvement in both groups (arthroscopic group: range 28-34, open group: range 25-31). Regarding range of motion, mean flexion-extension arc improved significantly in both groups (arthroscopic group: range 8-26°, open group: range 13-49°). The open group had a lower preoperative flexion-extension arc (range 63-96) in comparison with the arthroscopic group (range 84-119). The overall incidence of complications was 5.7% (range 0%-19%) in the arthroscopic group and 6.1% (range 0%-25%) in the open group. The most common complication type was neurologic, with an incidence of 2.1% (range 0%-8%) in the arthroscopic group and 1.9% (range 0%-12%) in the open group. The deep infection rate was 0.7% (range 0%-10%) in the open group with no reported incidence in the arthroscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrated good mid-term functional outcomes following debridement arthroplasty of the arthritic elbow. There was no increase in complications with an arthroscopic technique confirming its safety and efficacy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Systematic Review of Level III and IV articles.

Arthroscopic and open debridement in primary elbow osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the elbow can cause disabling symptoms of pain, locking, stiffness, and a limitation in the range of motion. There is no consensus regarding the role of open and arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of symptomatic primary elbow OA. The aim of this study is to systematically review the outcome of surgical debridement. A preoperative/postoperative comparison will be made between the two surgical procedures.

All studies reporting on debridement as treatment for primary elbow OA with a minimum of one-year follow-up were included. Outcome parameters were functional results, complications, and performance scores.

Data were extracted from 21 articles. The arthroscopic group consisted of 286 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 40 ± 17 months (range, 16–75). The open group consisted of 300 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 55 ± 20 months (range, 19–85). Both procedures showed improvement in Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range of motion (ROM) flexion-extension, and ROM pronation-supination. Only in ROM flexion was a statistically significant difference in improvement seen between the groups in favour of the open group. The arthroscopic group showed improvement in pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Nothing could be stated about pain VAS scores in the open group due to a lack of data. In the arthroscopic group 18 complications (6%) were described, in the open group 29 complications (12%).

Surgical debridement is an effective treatment for the disabling symptoms of primary elbow OA with an acceptable complication rate.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:874-882. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190095

Clinical outcomes of a combined arthroscopic and mini-open Outerbridge-Kashiwagi procedure for elbow osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes of a modified Outerbridge-Kashiwagi (O-K) procedure in the treatment of elbow osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and December 2016, 27 patients with elbow osteoarthritis were treated with a modified O-K procedure combining mini-open and arthroscopic technique in our institution. All patients with primary osteoarthritis and post-traumatic degenerative osteoarthritis of the elbow were included in the study if they had undergone the modified O-K procedure. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), degree of flexion, extension loss, arc of motion, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and radiographs.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients with a mean age of 47.2 years (range, 21-69 years) at surgery were followed up for a mean of 54.5 months (range, 27-86 months). The VAS improved from 8.0 ± 1.4 (range, 6-10) preoperatively to 1.3 ± 1.1 (range, 0-3) at the final follow-up (P < .001), degree of flexion from 115.2° ± 12.0° (range, 90°-135°) to 130.6° ± 6.3° (range, 120°-140°) (P < .001), extension loss from 31.2° ± 15.0° (range, 10°-60°) to 10.2° ± 7.7° (range, 0°-30°) (P < .001), arc of motion from 84.0° ± 18.8° (range, 55°-120°) to 120.4° ± 9.3° (range, 105°-135°) (P < .001), and MEPS from 55.8 ± 8.1 (range, 40-70) to 88.4 ± 7.2 (range, 70-100) (P < .001). Radiographs at the final follow-up showed that 9 patients (36%) had significant recurrence of bone formation within the fenestration of the olecranon fossa. One patient developed delayed-onset ulnar neuropathy, with only slight numbness in the ulnar nerve distribution 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified O-K procedure is safe and effective in pain relief and function restoration in patients with elbow osteoarthritis.

The clinical impact of arthroscopic vs. open osteocapsular débridement for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Primary elbow osteoarthritis (PEOA) is a debilitating disease that can be difficult to treat. Osteocapsular débridement (OD) has been described through various approaches, including arthroscopic and open approaches, with successful outcomes in treating PEOA. There is insufficient evidence in the literature to date to demonstrate the superiority of any approach. The purpose of this review was to compare the clinical results of arthroscopic vs. open OD for PEOA.

METHODS

The online databases PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), and Scopus (Elsevier) were searched from inception through April 1, 2018, for clinical studies reporting on OD. Studies were stratified based on an arthroscopic vs. open approach. Weighted means were calculated for surgical and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 30 studies, reporting on 871 patients and 887 elbows, with a mean follow-up period of 44.3 ± 25.5 months. Of these studies, 15 (420 elbows) reported on open OD, 14 (456 elbows) reported arthroscopic OD, and 1 reported on a cohort of each approach (open in 5 elbows and arthroscopic in 6). The Mayo Elbow Performance Score improved by 28.6 ± 4.57 in the open group vs. 26.6 ± 7.24 in the arthroscopic group. Flexion improved by 19° ± 6° in the open group and 10° ± 6° in the arthroscopic group. Extension improved by 11° ± 5° in the open group and 11° ± 6° in the arthroscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Open OD and arthroscopic OD are effective surgical treatment options for patients with symptomatic PEOA, reliably improving flexion, extension, and functional outcome scores with low complication rates.

Pain, function, and patient satisfaction after arthroscopic treatment of elbow in a retrospective series with minimum of 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The clinical indications for elbow arthroscopic procedures have expanded through last decades. The aim of the study was to assess the functional results and patient satisfaction after arthroscopic treatment of various elbow conditions after a minimum 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of a consecutive patient cohort who had undergone unilateral elbow arthroscopy between 2008 and 2010. The main outcomes were Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and a specific patient-reported outcome measure questionnaire after a minimum 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, there were 93 patients in the cohort with different diagnoses. Majority of patients were suffering from elbow osteoarthrosis. After the average follow-up of 72 months (range 60-96 months), the response rate was 67%. Eighty two percent of patients were satisfied with the pain relief and locking of the elbow was relieved in 70% of patients. Elbow range of motion (ROM) improved in 80% of the 55 patients who had a limited ROM before the operation. The overall patient satisfaction after elbow arthroscopic treatment was good. There were no differences in median DASH score between patients with or without post-traumatic condition, but the median DASH score for patients who had severe (grade 3) osteoarthrosis before the operation was significantly worse. There were no major complications reported in this cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic treatment of various elbow conditions was associated with good patient satisfaction and reduced symptoms without major complications. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Range-of-motion improvement and complication rate in open and arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To analyze ROM changes by using a Bayesian method, to compare complication and re-operation rates between open osteocapsular arthroplasty (OPEN) and arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty (ARTHRO) for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow, and find evidence-based tendencies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched. We performed descriptive analysis to compare ARTHRO and OPEN, a Bayesian analysis of ROM changes, and methodological assessment to determine the tendencies of OPEN and ARTHRO.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles (625 patients, 634 elbows) were analyzed. There were 11 articles on OPEN and 8 articles on ARTHRO (1 article was a comparative study between OPEN and ARTHRO). According to the Bayesian method, flexion and total arc of flexion-extension increased more with OPEN than with ARTHRO. Further, ARTHRO showed a narrower width in the ROM graph than OPEN. The number of complications was 17 (5.1%) and five (2.0%), and the number of re-operations was 32 (9.5%) and 14 (5.6%) for OPEN and ARTHRO, respectively. By analyzing six high-quality articles, we found three tendencies: OPEN and ARTHRO were both effective for improving pain score, flexion-extension arc, and functional outcome; OPEN did not improve the pronation-supination arc; and there was a weak tendency that OPEN was more effective than ARTHRO for improving the flexion arc.

CONCLUSION

Both OPEN and ARTHRO improved ROM and clinical scores. The Bayesian method indicated that although OPEN increased the flexion and flexion-extension arc more than ARTHRO, ARTHRO resulted in a relatively consistent surgical outcome. Additionally, OPEN caused relatively higher complication and re-operation rates than ARTHRO.

Can preoperative imaging predict the outcomes after arthroscopic release for elbow arthritis?

INTRODUCTION

The primary symptoms of elbow osteoarthritis are the progressive development of stiffness along with pain at the end range of motion due to osteophyte impingement. Surgical treatment involves resecting these "bone stops". In the literature, these osteophytic lesions are more common than cartilage lesions, which suggests they may occur beforehand. The aim of our study was to confirm osteophytes are more common than cartilage lesions, and also to establish a link between these lesions and the functional outcomes.

METHODS

This was a prospective multicenter (8 hospitals) study conducted in the context of a symposium of the Francophone Arthroscopy Society (SFA). Eighty-seven patients with elbow osteoarthritis treated by arthroscopic release were included. The clinical outcomes (range of motion in flexion, extension and pronation-supination; strength; pain at rest and during activity; satisfaction; Andrews and Carson score; QuickDASH, Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Self-Evaluation Elbow (SEE) were determined before the procedure and at the 6-month follow-up visit. A standard radiographic assessment was done before the surgery and at the last follow-up visit. A CT arthrogram was done before the procedure. The presence of joint narrowing, osteophytes, filling of fossa along with secondary osteochondroma was evaluated in terms of their location, severity, size and/or number. The presence of radial head subluxation was recorded. The Bröberg & Morrey and Rettig & Hastings classification systems were applied. All the postoperative clinical data along with their change (difference between preoperative and postoperative values) were compared to the imaging findings.

RESULTS

Osteophytes were found in 95% of our patients. They were located at the olecranon in 85% of cases and at the coronoid process in 81%. Filled fossae found in 94% of cases. The olecranon, coronoid and radial fossa were filled in 83%, 80% and 60% of elbows, respectively. On the initial X-rays, joint narrowing was found in 68% of elbows. CT arthrogram identified narrowing in 70% of cases. Narrowing was present in the humeroradial joint in 60% of cases and in the humeroulnar joint in 23% of cases. The presence of joint narrowing on CT arthrogram was a negative prognostic factor for pain during activity (p<0.05) along with the Quick DASH (p<0.01) and PREE (p<0.05). Involvement of the humeroradial joint impacted pain at rest (p<0.01). Narrowing of the humeroulnar joint was associated with worse outcomes in terms of pain at rest (p<0.05) and during activity (p<0.05), QuickDASH (p<0.005), MEPS (p<0.05), PREE (p<0.05) and the SEE (p<0.05). The presence of loose bodies before the procedure was associated with better outcomes in terms of pain at rest (p<0.05), QuickDASH (p<0.001), MEPS (p<0.001), Andrews & Carson score (p<0.05) and PREE (p<0.005). The osteoarthritis stage in the Bröberg & Morrey or the Rettig & Hastings classification systems did not impact the various clinical parameters or functional outcome scores.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

In the imaging work-up, signs of impingement (osteophytes and filling of fossa) are more common than signs of joint narrowing. The presence of humeroulnar and/or humeroradial impingement when there are no cartilage lesions visible may correspond to a pre-arthritic stage. The outcomes of arthroscopic release are better in elbows with isolated impingement than in those with cartilage lesions, especially at the humeroulnar joint. Excision of secondary osteochondromas is also an excellent surgical indication. Current classification systems cannot be used to determine the prognosis before arthroscopic release of elbow osteoarthritis cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, Prospective multicenter observational cohort study.

Use of a modified Outerbridge-Kashiwagi procedure for the treatment of posttraumatic elbow sequelae

BACKGROUND

To review our 10-year experience treating posttraumatic sequelae of the elbow using a modified Outerbridge-Kashiwagi (O-K) procedure.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients with posttraumatic sequelae of the elbow treated using the technique were evaluated clinically using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, range of motion testing, and pain level. We noted the presence of preoperative and postoperative ulnar nerve symptoms, complications, and reoperations. Open contracture release was selected to address either removal of hardware or ulnar nerve pathology.

RESULTS

At a mean of 39 months (range, 12-116 months), the Mayo Elbow Performance Score improved from 52 to 84 (P < .0001) and the mean arc of motion improved from 44° to 98° (P < .0001). At the final follow-up, 90% of patients reported no pain or mild pain, and 81% of patients had a satisfactory objective result. In 15 of 21 cases (71%), it was necessary to mobilize the ulnar nerve. After contracture release, 1 patient developed new onset ulnar nerve symptoms. Three patients underwent reoperation: 2 for recalcitrant contracture and 1 for new onset ulnar nerve symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The mini-open O-K procedure is safe and effective in restoring function in patients with retained hardware and posttraumatic contracture. Posttraumatic arthritic patients often require both removal of hardware and neurolysis of the ulnar nerve. The mini-open O-K procedure allows complete access to the elbow joint, which facilitates release for both intrinsic and extrinsic contracture.

Radiocapitellar arthroplasty: a consecutive case series with 2 to 6 years' follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze indications, outcomes, and complications in patients treated with radiocapitellar arthroplasty.

METHODS

This prospective analysis of clinical and radiographic results included 16 elbows in 15 patients.

RESULTS

This study included 4 men and 11 women (mean age, 51.9 years; age range, 32-65 years). The mean follow-up period was 3.4 years (range, 2-6 years). The indications were post-traumatic (n = 10) and primary radiohumeral osteoarthritis (n = 6). A mean of 2 surgical procedures (range, 0-4) had been performed before radiocapitellar arthroplasty. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score significantly improved from 46 points to 85 points (P < .01). The arc of motion improved from 106° to 117° (P = .27). Radiographic ulnohumeral degeneration progressed in 40% of cases but was not symptomatic in any. Subsequent surgery was required in 5 elbows (31%). Revision of the radial head component was necessary in 4 patients (25%). In 3 patients this was a result of loosening of the stem. The radial component was subsequently removed because of persistent pain in 1. Radiographic loosening not requiring revision was found in 2 patients.

CONCLUSION

The overall Mayo Elbow Performance Score was good to excellent after radiocapitellar arthroplasty. Both the revision and reoperation rates were high, and one should consider this before performing this procedure. Loosening of the radial head component was a problem. An improved fixation technique or an adaptation of the design is needed before this type of surgery can be recommended as a standard procedure.

Treatment of osteoarthritis of the elbow with open or arthroscopic debridement: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Elbow osteoarthritis (OA) is a common disabling condition because of pain and loss of motion. Open and arthroscopic debridement are the preferred treatment, however there is no consensus on which treatment modality is suited to which category of patient or stage of disease. The objective of this study was to narratively review the literature for a more comprehensive understanding of its treatment options and associated outcomes, trying to provide a better treatment plan.

METHODS

The PubMed database, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched, using the keywords (elbow [title/abstract] and osteoarthritis [title/abstract] and (surgery or open or arthroscop* or debridement or ulnohumeral arthroplasty) including all possible studies with a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 229 studies were identified. Twenty-one articles published between 1994 and 2016 satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria including 651 elbows in 639 patients. After comparison, mean postoperative improvement in (ROM) was 28.6° and 23.3°,Mayo elbow performance score/index(MEPS/MEPI) 31 and 26.8 and the total complication rate was 37(11.5%), and 18(5.5%) for open and arthroscopic procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

This narrative review could not provide an insight on which surgical procedure is superior to the other due to the poor orthopedics literature. However, from the data we obtained the open and arthroscopic debridement procedures seem to be safe and effective in the treatment of elbow OA. The optimal surgical intervention for the treatment of symptomatic elbow OA should be determined depending on patients' conditions.

[Bony contact in arthritic and healthy elbow joints : Studies in cadaveric specimens]

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic and open debridement arthroplasty for elbow arthrosis produce excellent results. Resection of the tip of the olecranon and coronoid, as well as debridement of the associated fossae, is frequently described as sufficient for restoring range of motion and reducing pain.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that medial and lateral osteophytes of the olecranon and the coronoid usually mark the first bony contact and may, therefore, restrict range of motion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

11 fresh-frozen elbows were dissected. The fossae were coated with Optosil P Plus (C-silicone), and maximal flexion and extension was simulated. The distribution of C‑silicone impressions was documented. 6/7 donors were male. The mean age at the time of death was 82 .

RESULTS

Out of 11 elbows, 4 exhibited arthritic changes. All arthritic elbows showed marginal osteophytes of the olecranon without characteristic dipping of the olecranon into its fossa. In 1/4 cases, additional osteophytes at the side of the coronoid were detected (in comparison to 1/7 in healthy elbows).

CONCLUSION

The distribution of osteophytes in elbow arthrosis may be underestimated. Many clinicians describe a resection of the tip of the olecranon and the coronoid and debridement of the related fossa as sufficient. Our study supports the theory that marginal osteophytes, especially of the olecranon, should be resected during debridement arthroplasty, since the distribution of bony contact differs in arthritic and healthy elbows.

Arthroscopic debridement for primary elbow osteoarthritis with and without capsulectomy: a comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic elbow debridement for primary osteoarthritis may be performed with or without a joint capsulectomy. The purpose of this comparative cohort study was to compare range of motion (ROM) and early complications between patients with and without anterior capsulectomy.

METHODS

In total, 110 patients with primary osteoarthritis of the elbow who underwent an arthroscopic debridement for primary osteoarthritis were reviewed with a minimum of 3 months postoperative follow-up. The first group consisted of 51 patients who had a concomitant capsulectomy and the second group consisted of 59 patients who either had a capsulotomy or did not have the capsule addressed.

RESULTS

There was significantly greater pre-operative stiffness in the group who had an anterior capsulectomy versus those who did not. A greater improvement in arc of ROM occurred in patients who had a concomitant capsulectomy compared to patients without (24° versus 12°) (p < 0.003); however, there were no significant differences in final ROM between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of complications between the groups (16% capsulectomy versus 18% no capsulectomy).

CONCLUSIONS

Elbow arthroscopy and debridement for primary elbow osteoarthritis yields satisfactory motion at short-term follow-up with or without a capsulectomy. The incidence of early complications was low at this tertiary referral centre, with no significant differences between groups.

Arthroscopic Debridement for Primary Degenerative Osteoarthritis of the Elbow Leads to Significant Improvement in Range of Motion and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether arthroscopic debridement of primary elbow osteoarthritis results in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in (1) elbow range of motion and (2) clinical outcomes with (3) low complication and reoperation rates.

METHODS

A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed using PRISMA guidelines. Databases were searched for studies that investigated the outcomes of arthroscopic debridement for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the elbow in adult human patients. Study methodological quality was analyzed. Studies that included post-traumatic arthritis were excluded. Elbow motion and all elbow-specific patient-reported outcome scores were eligible for analysis. Comparisons between preoperative and postoperative values from each study were made using 2-sample Z-tests (http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ztest) using a P value < .05.

RESULTS

Nine articles (209 subjects, 213 elbows, 187 males, 22 females, mean age 45.7 ± 7.1 years, mean follow-up 41.7 ± 16.3. months; 75% right, 25% left; 79% dominant elbow, 21% nondominant) were analyzed. Elbow extension (23.4°-10.7°, Δ 12.7°), flexion (115.9°-128.7°, Δ 12.8°), and global arc of motion (94.5°-117.6°, Δ 23.1°) had statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement following arthroscopic debridement (P < .0001 for all). There was also a statistically significant (P < .0001) and clinically relevant improvement in the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (60.7-84.6, Δ 23.9) postoperatively. Six patients (2.8%) had postoperative complications. Nine (4.2%) underwent reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Elbow arthroscopic debridement for primary degenerative osteoarthritis results in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in elbow range of motion and clinical outcomes with low complication and reoperation rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review of level IV studies.

Arthroscopic Management of Osteoarthritis

Arthroscopic surgery is commonly performed in the knee, shoulder, elbow, and hip. However, the role it plays in the management of osteoarthritis is controversial. Routine arthroscopic management of osteoarthritis was once common, but this practice has been recently scrutinized. Although some believe that there is no role for arthroscopic treatment in the management of osteoarthritis, it may be appropriate and beneficial in certain situations. The clinical success of such treatment may be rooted in appropriate patient selection and adherence to a specific surgical technique. Arthroscopy may serve as an effective and less invasive option than traditional methods of managing osteoarthritis.

Arthroscopic joint debridement and capsular release in primary and post-traumatic elbow osteoarthritis: a retrospective blinded cohort study with minimum 24-month follow-up

BACKGROUND

Elbow osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative condition which in the advanced stage can severely impair joint mobility. Conservative treatment remains the first choice; surgery should be considered in case of failure in patients prepared to adhere to a demanding rehabilitation protocol. We assess the effectiveness of arthroscopic joint debridement and capsular release in a series of patients with primary and post-traumatic elbow arthritis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight subjects (40 males, eight females; mean age 48 years) with a preoperative diagnosis of primary (19, 40 %) or post-traumatic OA (29, 60 %) were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 44 months. Outcome measures were active range of motion (ROM), pain score, Oxford elbow score (OES), and Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS). OA severity was graded into three classes (I-III) based on X-ray findings. Statistical significance was set at 5 %.

RESULTS

At the final follow-up evaluation, active flexion/extension increased significantly (p < 0.01); pronation and supination improved, but the difference was not significant (p > 0.05). The pain score improved from 7.2 to 4.3 (p < 0.01). Both OES and MEPS improved significantly (p < 0.001). Patients with post-traumatic OA had better ROM (p = 0.0391) and clinical scores (OES, p = 0.011; MEPS, p = 0.010). ROM and clinical scores were lower but not significantly so in class II than in class I patients. A smooth coronoid and olecranon fossa was found in 38 (79 %) patients and a preserved ulnotrochlear joint space in 40 (80 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Elbow OA has become more common as a result of earlier diagnosis and an increased number of acute injuries involving the joint. Arthroscopy is an effective technique to treat OA which provides the best results with the correct indications. Prospective studies are needed to help develop guidelines enabling selection of the best treatment option.