Prospective outcome assessment of arthroscopic arthrolysis for traumatic and degenerative elbow contracture

Wide Range in Complication Rates Following Elbow Arthroscopy in Adult and Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of complications associated with elbow arthroscopy in adults and children.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting complications or reoperations after elbow arthroscopy with at least 5 patients were included. Based on the Nelson classification, the severity of complications was categorized as minor or major. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized trials were assessed using the Methodological Items for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool.

RESULT

A total of 114 articles were included with 18,892 arthroscopies (16,815 patients). A low risk of bias was seen for the randomized studies and a fair quality for the nonrandomized studies. Complication rates ranged from 0% to 71% (median 3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8%-3.3%), and reoperation rates from 0% to 59% (median 2%; 95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%). A total of 906 complications were observed, with transient nerve palsies (31%) as the most frequent complication. According to Nelson classification, 735 (81%) complications were minor and 171 (19%) major. Forty-nine studies reported complications in adults and 10 studies in children, showing a complication rate ranging from 0% to 27% (median 0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.4%) and 0% to 57% (median 1%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.5%), respectively. A total of 125 complications were observed in adults, with transient nerve palsies (23%) as the most frequent complication, and 33 in children, with loose bodies after surgery (45%) as the most frequent complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Predominantly low-level evidence studies demonstrate varying complication rates (median 3%, range 0%-71%) and reoperation rates (median 2%, range 0%-59%) after elbow arthroscopy. Higher complication rates are observed after more complex surgery. The incidence and type of complications can aid surgeons in patient counseling and refining surgical techniques to further reduce the complication rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

Arthroscopic Capsular Release for Post-traumatic Elbow Stiffness

BACKGROUND

Post-traumatic elbow stiffness (PTES) may substantially affect the patient's functional range of motion and quality of life. Open elbow release has been extensively studied, but arthroscopic techniques are limited, particularly in differentiating between post-traumatic and non-traumatic stiffness. The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic release of PTES regarding the range of motion (ROM), pain, functional assessment, and complications.

METHODS

A prospective cohort was conducted on adult patients who underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis for PTES, with 32 patients included in the final analysis. The ROM was measured using the orthopedic goniometer. Grip strength was measured using the Camry digital hand dynamometer (Camry, CA, USA) and compared to their contralateral side. The functional status of the patients was evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (ASES)andthe Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI). All measurements were done before surgery and at the last follow-up visit. Pre-operative and post-operative changes in MEPI, ASES, and visual analog (VAS) scores were compared with the paired t-test.

RESULTS

After surgery, the ROM significantly improved from 74 ± 11 to 110 ± 15 degrees (p<0.001). Additionally, the ASES score and MEPI index both significantly improved from 69 ± 3.4 to 79 ± 6.3 and from 64 ± 5.7 to 82 ± 8, respectively (p<0.001). VAS scores also significantly improved from 1.1 ± 0.87 to 0.31 ± 0.53 at rest (p<0.001). The complication rate was 12%, including three transient ulnar nerve paresthesia and one superficial infection. Post-traumatic elbow release was more offered in distal humerus fractures (53%), followed by proximal ulna fracture/dislocations (25%).

CONCLUSION

We believe that arthroscopic arthrolysis is a safe and reliable treatment of PTES, which improves joint visibility and reduces pain. Patients can be counseled regarding the risk of a secondary surgery following distal humerus or proximal ulna fractures, including the expected recovery and complication rate.

Surgical arthrolysis of the stiff elbow: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Stiffness after elbow injuries can severely limit daily life. If adequate conservative treatment does not result in satisfactory improvement of elbow function, surgical intervention should be considered. Whether an open or arthroscopic procedure is preferable is still a topic of debate and a systematic review of functional outcomes is lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed the available literature searching electronic databases, MEDLINE using the PubMed interface and EMBASE, for studies published between 2013 and 2021. Primary objective was to compare open and arthroscopic arthrolysis' functional outcomes, respectively, especially ROM and MEPS, as well as the accompanied complications. The PRISMA guidelines were applied.

RESULTS

27 studies comprising 1666 patients were included. 1059 patients (63.6%) were treated with open arthrolysis, and 607 patients (36.4%) were treated with arthroscopic arthrolysis. The results presented indicate satisfactory outcomes in open and arthroscopic arthrolysis with regard to functional outcome parameters. Treatment success, defined as excellent or good results according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, among the patients treated with an open procedure was 88.8%; 6.3% required revision whereas 18.1% had complications without the need for revision surgery. Within the cohort of arthroscopically treated patients, treatment success was 91.8%. Revisions and complications without further surgical intervention were significantly less frequent than in the open cohort, at 1.6% and 9.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both open and arthroscopic arthrolysis provide good to excellent functional outcomes. Since the number of complications and revision increases with the invasiveness of the treatment, an arthroscopic procedure might be favored if feasible by indication. The role of forearm rotation and the use of a hinged external fixator remains of interest.

STUDY DESIGN

Level IV; Systematic review.

Comparison of results of arthroscopic arthrolysis between traumatic and degenerative elbow stiffness

INTRODUCTION

Elbow stiffness significantly affects the patient's quality of life. This joint must have at least 30°/130° extension/flexion and 50°/50° pronation/supination to function normally according to Morrey.

HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was to evaluate functional outcome of arthroscopic arthrolysis by comparing stiffness of post-traumatic and degenerative origin. The hypothesis was that this surgical technique allows functional improvement in any indication but with a faster result in degenerative pathology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study including all patients who underwent elbow arthrolysis under arthroscopy, operated on by a single operator, between 2013 and 2020. Thirty-four patients were included, with a mean age of 45years (range, 18-78years). Patients were divided into two groups according to etiology. Group A (post-traumatic) consisted of 18 patients with a mean age of 33years (range, 18-64years) and group B (degenerative) of 16 patients with a mean age of 59years (range, 42-78years). All patients were clinically assessed at a mean 27months. Range of motion, level of satisfaction and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were collected.

RESULTS

In the overall series, preoperative range of motion was 81° and significantly improved postoperatively to 122° (p<0.001). The preoperative data of the 2 groups were comparable except for age (p<0.001) and MEPS (p=0.044). Postoperatively, range of motion improved significantly in both groups but with greater gain in group A (p=0.003). MEPS improved significantly in both groups, but the postoperative score was poorer in group B (p=0.001). Recovery of range of motion was faster in group B (2.4months) than in group A (3.7months) (p=0.021). There were 5 complications: 4 secondary decompensations of ulnar tunnel syndrome, and 1 postoperative radial nerve paresis. 94% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the result of surgery.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic arthrolysis is an effective option for post-traumatic and non-traumatic elbow stiffness. Improvement was significant in terms of both function and range of motion, with, however, better results in the post-traumatic group but results achieved more rapidly in the degenerative pathology group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Improves Nontraumatic Knee Contracture in a Rat Model

BACKGROUND

Joint contractures occur frequently after trauma or immobilization, but few reliable treatments are available. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is often used for various musculoskeletal conditions, but whether it is effective for treating joint contractures and the mechanisms through which it might work for that condition remain unclear.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using a rat model, we asked, does ESWT (1) inhibit the progression of knee contracture, (2) ameliorate histopathologic joint changes, and (3) improve serum and myofascial fibrosis-related factors? We also asked, (4) what is the possible mechanism by which ESWT inhibits knee contracture?

METHODS

Thirty-two male Sprague-Dawley rats (12 weeks old and weighing 300 to 400 g) were randomly separated into two groups: control group (eight rats) and noncontrol group (24) in the first week. Rats in the control group were kept free in cages for 4 weeks, and the right lower limbs of the rats in the noncontrol group were immobilized in plaster for 4 weeks. ROM was then measured for each rat with or without 4 weeks of immobilization. After ROM measurement, rats in the noncontrol group were randomly separated into three groups: immobilization group (eight rats), remobilization group (eight rats), and remobilization with ESWT group (eight rats) at Week 4. Knee contracture was induced in rats by fixing the right knee with a plaster cast as in a previous study. The plaster cast was removed after 4 weeks; knee contracture was established when passive ROM was decreased and dysfunction such as abnormal gait occurred. Subsequently, rats with a remobilized joint contracture were treated with or without ESWT for 15 days (on Days 5, 10, and 15). The therapeutic effect was examined using ROM, joint diameter (as an indication of swelling), histopathologic changes, and the levels of fibrosis-related extracellular matrix component factors (hyaluronic acid, serum procollagen peptide, and laminin). The effect of ESWT on fibrosis protein was also evaluated using immunohistochemistry, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and Western blot. The expressions of factors in the TGF-β/SMADs pathway were also determined using Western blot and qPCR.

RESULTS

ESWT mitigated immobilization-induced knee contracture in rats by improving ROM (immobilization versus remobilization with ESWT: 53° ± 8° versus 32° ± 8° [95% confidence interval 13° to 30°]; p < 0.001) and joint swelling (immobilization versus remobilization with ESWT: 8 ± 0.8 cm versus 6 ± 0.3 cm [95% CI 0.4 to 2.2 cm]; p = 0.01). Histopathologic features of remission were alleviated after ESWT (immobilization versus remobilization with ESWT: thickness of the knee space: 0.2 ± 0.03 mm versus 0.6 ± 0.01 mm [95% CI -0.49 to -0.33 mm]; p < 0.001. On Masson staining, the positive expression area, which indicates collagen fiber deposition, was 24% ± 5% versus 9% ± 2% ([95% CI 10% to 21%]; p < 0.001). ESWT improved the serum fibrosis factors of hyaluronic acid, procollagen peptide, and laminin (immobilization versus remobilization with ESWT: hyaluronic acid: 412 ± 32 versus 326 ±15 ng/mL [95% CI 29 to 144 ng/mL]; p = 0.003; serum procollagen peptide: 19 ± 1 versus 12 ±1 ng/mL [95% CI 3 to 11 ng/mL]; p < 0.001; laminin: 624 ± 78 versus 468 ±9 ng/mL [95% CI 81 to 231 ng/mL]; p = 0.006) and myofascial factors of α-SMA and Type I collagen associated with immobilization-induced contractures.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that ESWT improved joint contracture by inhibiting the TGF-β1/SMADs signaling pathway in rats.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This work suggests ESWT may be worth exploring in preliminary research in humans to determine whether it may be a treatment option for patients with nontraumatic knee contractures. If the mechanism of ESWT can be confirmed in humans, ESWT might be a therapy for diseases involved in the TGF-β1/SMADs signaling pathway, such as hypertroic scarring and scleroderma.

Application of ultrasound in avoiding radial nerve injury during elbow arthroscopy: a retrospective follow-up study

BACKGROUND

A safe and effective technique for anterolateral portal placement in elbow arthroscopy is significant. We compared the outcomes of patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy using different ultrasound-assisted techniques.

METHODS

From May 2016 to June 2021 a retrospective analysis on all patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy in our department was performed. Patients were separated into three groups: non-ultrasound; preoperative ultrasound; and intraoperative ultrasound. The minimum follow-up period was 1 year. Nerve injuries, visual analog scale (VAS), Mayo elbow-performance score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), and range of motion (ROM) of the elbow were evaluated for comparison among the three groups pre- and post-operatively.

RESULTS

All 55 patients completed a 1-year follow-up: non-ultrasound (n = 20); preoperative ultrasound (n = 17); and intraoperative ultrasound (n = 18). There were 3 cases (15.0%) of transient radial nerve palsy in the non-ultrasound group. No nerve complications occurred in preoperative ultrasound and intraoperative ultrasound groups. The probability of postoperative radial nerve injury in the three groups was statistically different (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score, MEPS, DASH score, and ROM among the three groups at the follow-up evaluation (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Performing anterolateral portal placement during elbow arthroscopy with ultrasound-assisted techniques successfully avoided radial nerve injury.

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.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Elbow Contracture Release: Improvement for Severe Prosupination and Flexion Contracture

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes following arthroscopic elbow contracture release to describe the use of arthroscopy for improvement in extension/flexion and pronation/supination arcs of motion at a single institution for degenerative and posttraumatic etiologies.

METHODS

Consecutive arthroscopic elbow arthrolysis performed between 2003 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Basic patient demographics, indications for surgery, preoperative and postoperative elbow range of motion, postoperative patient outcome score, and all complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were included with an average follow-up of 5.1 years (range 1.4 to 9.4). Severe contractures made up 50% of cases, followed by 23% moderate, and 27% mild. Average extension/flexion for the post-traumatic group (n = 30) increased by 63° ± 31 and by 29° ± 24 for the degenerative group (n = 22). Average gain in pronosupination was 38° ± 62 in the post-traumatic group and 13°±23 in the degenerative group. Postoperative DASH scores were 17.5 ± 18.4 for post-traumatic cases and 12.8 ± 19.3 for degenerative cases.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic elbow contracture release is an effective intervention for degenerative and post-traumatic elbow contracture for both flexion/extension and pronosupination contracture. Furthermore, a two-stage release should be considered when both flexion and pronosupinaton contractures are present.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series, treatment study.

Arthroscopic management of elbow stiffness

The elbow is particularly prone to stiffness. Loss of elbow motion is very limiting, and can be the result of trauma, primary osteoarthritis, heterotopic ossification and other conditions. Several exposures have been described for open elbow contracture release. Although a few decades ago elbow arthroscopy was considered only for diagnosis and removal of loose bodies, contemporary arthroscopic techniques allow successful management of the majority of conditions leading to elbow stiffness. Careful patient evaluation, use of advanced imaging studies, and acquisition of appropriate surgical skills are essential for the successful arthroscopic management of the stiff elbow. This expert opinion reviews some fundamentals of elbow stiffness as well as principles for the evaluation and arthroscopic management of the stiff elbow.

Surgical management for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow

The objective of this review is to summarize the surgical options for primary osteoarthritis of the elbow, reported clinical outcomes, and suggested indications in previous literatures. The surgical management of primary elbow arthritis has evolved because of an improved understanding of pathologic mechanisms and manifestations as well as the development of novel surgical techniques and devices. Osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA), elbow debridement, distraction arthroplasty, and total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) have been employed for managing elbow osteoarthritis. Elbow debridement and OCA can be helpful in most cases of symptomatic elbow arthritis. TEA is usually recommended for end-stage arthritis in elderly patients after prosthetic implants have been in place for long periods or after complications. Distraction arthroplasty might find a place in the treatment of younger, active patients with end-stage arthritis.

Primary Elbow Osteoarthritis: Evaluation and Management

Most patients with primary osteoarthritis of the elbow report a history of heavy lifting with the affected upper extremity . Conservative treatment, including activity modifications, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the occasional intraarticular corticosteroid injection, may provide adequate pain relief in earlier stages . When surgery is required, and despite the presence of cartilage wear, many patients with primary elbow osteoarthritis experience substantial pain improvement with joint preserving procedures . The ulnar nerve needs to be carefully assessed and addressed at the time of surgery . Although open debridement procedures are effective, arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty has emerged as the surgical procedure of choice . Total elbow arthroplasty is very successful in terms of pain relief and function, but it is reserved for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis who are relatively older and have failed joint preserving procedures.

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

Arthroscopic arthrolysis leads to improved range of motion and health-related quality of life in post-traumatic elbow stiffness

BACKGROUND

Post-traumatic elbow stiffness is a frequent and disabling complication after elbow trauma. Surgical release is needed if conservative treatment fails. In contrast to open surgical release, arthroscopic arthrolysis is a good and least invasive option to restore joint mobility. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes, range of motion (ROM), and function of post-traumatic elbow contracture after arthroscopic arthrolysis and to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL).

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2013, 44 patients with post-traumatic elbow stiffness were treated by arthroscopic arthrolysis and followed up in a consecutive series. Clinical (ROM) and functional analyses (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire [DASH], Mayo Elbow Performance Index [MEPI]) were performed at final follow-up 3 (1-7) years postoperatively. Furthermore, HRQL was evaluated (EQ-5D, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]).

DISCUSSION

The average arc of elbow motion increased from 84° ± 28° preoperatively to 120° ± 18° postoperatively. All applied scores significantly improved pre- to postoperatively: the MEPI (59.8 ± 17.3 / 84.3 ± 14.0), DASH (43.5 ± 23.1 / 16.8 ± 15.6), EQ-5D (72.8 ± 16.6 / 84.0 ± 13.6), and SF-36 showed improved results in all categories. Univariate logistic regression revealed that preoperative pain level predicts a poorer postoperative outcome measured with the MEPI score. Revision arthroscopy was needed in 1 case because of persistent pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic arthrolysis leads to good clinical and functional results in post-traumatic elbow stiffness regarding ROM, pain relief, functionality, and quality of life. The complication rate as well as the revision rate is very low.

Softer Tissue Issues in Orthopaedic Trauma

There are number of significant issues outside of the bone and/or fracture that are important to consider in the treatment of orthopaedic trauma. Joint contractures, heterotopic bone formation, managing a traumatized soft-tissue envelope or substantial soft-tissue defects represent a few of these important issues. This article reviews these issues, including the best available evidence on how to manage them.

Arthroscopic release for the severely stiff elbow

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic release for the stiff elbow has been widely used, but there are no reports limited to severe stiffness. The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcomes of severe cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients with 10 severely stiff elbows defined by a limited arc of ≤ 60° underwent this arthroscopic release. Causes of stiffness were post-traumatic stiffness (one patient), osteoarthritis (three patients), and rheumatoid arthritis (six patients). Using arthroscopy, the capsule contracture and the intra-articular fibrosis were removed and the impinging osteophyte and part of the radial head were resected. For four patients with preoperative ulnar nerve symptoms or contracture of the posterior oblique ligament of the medial collateral ligament, mini-open ulnar nerve neurolysis and release of the posterior oblique ligament were performed. Patients were followed up for an average of 24 months.

RESULTS

Arthroscopic release could be performed without any intraoperative complications. Range of motion for the elbow significantly improved from 95° of flexion and - 55° of extension to 109° of flexion and - 32° of extension. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score also improved from 56 points to 80 points. Two patients underwent a second arthroscopic surgery and gained further arc of motion. One patient showed osteophyte reformation and needed revision open surgery 1 year after the initial surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic release for the severely stiff elbow could improve range of motion. Careful attention should be given during surgery to avoid complications such as intramuscular bleeding or nerve damage.

Clinical Outcome of Osteocapsular Arthroplasty for Primary Osteoarthritis of the Elbow: Comparison of Arthroscopic and Open Procedure

PURPOSE

To compare clinical and radiologic outcomes following open (OPEN) and arthroscopic (ARTHRO) osteocapsular arthroplasty for primary elbow osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Patients treated with osteocapsular arthroplasty between January 2010 and December 2015 were divided into OPEN and ARTHRO groups. OPEN was performed from January 2010 to October 2012, and ARTHRO from November 2012 to December 2015. OPEN and ARTHRO were performed in 35 and 52 elbows, respectively. Clinical outcome was measured using range of motion (ROM) arc, functional score (Mayo Elbow Performance Score [MEPS]), and pain score (visual analog scale [VAS]). Conventional radiography was used for outcome analysis. Outcomes were analyzed according to ulnohumeral joint (UHJ) narrowing using the computed tomography-based modified Broberg and Morrey classification.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up time was 36.6 ± 14.4 (24-89) and 35.4 ± 14.2 (24-83) months following OPEN and ARTHRO, respectively. Average ages were 50.0 ± 7.0 (40-63) and 52.4+10.4 (41-75) years in OPEN and ARTHRO groups, respectively. Overall scores for ROM (preoperative to final follow-up: 65.5° ± 22.8 to 112.0° ± 50.9, P < .01), MEPS (42.9 ± 13.7 to 73.7 ± 16.6, P < .01), and VAS (6.6 ± 1.3 to 4.0 ± 2.3, P < .01) were improved. Preoperative ROM improved from 64.0° ± 23.3 to 118.0° ± 17.8 following OPEN and 66.5° ± 22.6 to 108.0° ± 24.0 following ARTHRO. Preoperative MEPS improved from 40.7 ± 15.6 to 73.6 ± 16.7 following OPEN and 44.3 ± 12.2 to 73.8 ± 16.7 following ARTHRO. Preoperative VAS improved from 6.9 ± 1.2 to 3.9 ± 2.6 following OPEN and 6.4 ± 1.3 to 4.1 ± 2.0 following arthro. In both groups, the last follow-up VAS score and MEPS were worse in the narrowing group (UHJ <2 mm, grades 2 and 3) than in the intact group (UHJ >2 mm, grade 1) (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty is comparable to the OPEN procedure in managing primary osteoarthritis of the elbow; however, the OPEN procedure shows the better outcome in improvement of flexion limitation. Neither procedures can guarantee an excellent outcome in the patients with severe UHJ narrowing.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Determining the effective timing of an open arthrolysis for post-traumatic elbow stiffness: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Following trauma, the elbow is the most susceptible to restricted motion among all joints. Open arthrolysis is often performed for post-traumatic elbow stiffness if that stiffness does not improve with non-operative management. However, the optimal timing for performing an open arthrolysis remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome (elbow motion and function) and the rate of complications among patients who had undergone early, median and late release procedures to establish an optimal time interval following the injury, after which, an effective open arthrolysis can be performed.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we included total 133 patients, who had undergone open arthrolysis for post-traumatic elbow stiffness. The subjects were divided into 3 groups, with 31 patients in the early release group (arthrolysis performed at 6–10 months after injury), 78 patients in the median release group (at 11–20 months), and 24 patients in the late release group (at > 20 months). The release procedure in all patients was performed by the same surgeon, using the same technique. The general data, functional performance, and complications, if any, were retrospectively documented for all patients and statistically analysed.

Results

The demographic data and disease characteristics of all patients were comparable at baseline. Postoperatively, no significant differences were found among the three groups with respect to the range of motion (p = 0.067), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (p = 0.350) and its ratings (p = 0.329), visual analog scale score for pain (p = 0.227), Dellon classification for ulnar nerve symptoms (p = 0.497), and each discrete complication (all p values > 0.05).

Conclusions

At the final follow-up, our results showed no significant difference in the postoperative elbow motion capacities, functional scores and the rates of complications among patients who had undergone an early, median, and late release. Therefore, we have recommended that an early arthrolysis would be preferable due to its multiple advantages, and the conventionally observed interval of > 1 year after the injury, could be shortened.

Level of evidence

Level III; Retrospective Cohort Design; Therapeutic Study.