Effect of hyperuricemia on functional outcomes and complications in patients with elbow stiffness after open arthrolysis combined with hinged external fixation: a retrospective study

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.

Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for open elbow arthrolysis : the Shanghai Prediction model for Elbow Stiffness Surgical Outcome

AIMS

The aim of this study was to develop and internally validate a prognostic nomogram to predict the probability of gaining a functional range of motion (ROM ≥ 120°) after open arthrolysis of the elbow in patients with post-traumatic stiffness of the elbow.

METHODS

We developed the Shanghai Prediction Model for Elbow Stiffness Surgical Outcome (SPESSO) based on a dataset of 551 patients who underwent open arthrolysis of the elbow in four institutions. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected from medical records. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model was used to optimize the selection of relevant features. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to build the SPESSO. Its prediction performance was evaluated using the concordance index (C-index) and a calibration graph. Internal validation was conducted using bootstrapping validation.

RESULTS

BMI, the duration of stiffness, the preoperative ROM, the preoperative intensity of pain, and grade of post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the elbow were identified as predictors of outcome and incorporated to construct the nomogram. SPESSO displayed good discrimination with a C-index of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.81). A high C-index value of 0.70 could still be reached in the interval validation. The calibration graph showed good agreement between the nomogram prediction and the outcome.

CONCLUSION

The newly developed SPESSO is a valid and convenient model which can be used to predict the outcome of open arthrolysis of the elbow. It could assist clinicians in counselling patients regarding the choice and expectations of treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):486-494.