Routine diagnostic arthroscopy with elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction does not reduce the need for future valgus extension overload-related surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anatomical considerations, diagnosis, and treatment of medial and posterolateral elbow rotatory instability in athletes: an arthroscopic perspective and literature review

PURPOSE

Elbow joint instability results from the disruption of one or more stabilizing anatomical structures. The two most common forms of instability are posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) and medial elbow instability (MEI), particularly in athletes. This review aims to explore the anatomical foundations, diagnostic methods, and therapeutic approaches for PLRI and MEI in athletes.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed to investigate the study objective.

RESULTS

Regarding the anatomical background, the primary stabilizing structures of the elbow joint include the humeroulnar joint (trochlea, olecranon, and coronoid process), the medial collateral ligament (MCL), and the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL). PLRI is primarily caused by LUCL insufficiency, while MEI results from MCL dysfunction. A thorough clinical evaluation, combined with advanced imaging-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or MR arthrography is essential for an accurate diagnosis. For high-level athletes, surgical intervention is often required, with the timing and type of surgery tailored to the athlete's specific needs, expectations, and the chronicity of the injury.

CONCLUSION

PLRI and MEI present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, especially in athletes. Advanced imaging and clinical evaluation are crucial for the diagnosis. Surgical intervention, particularly arthroscopy, is often required for optimal outcomes.

Graft choice and techniques used in elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction over the last 20 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Elbow medial ulnar collateral ligament (mUCL) injuries have become increasingly common, leading to a higher number of mUCL reconstructions (UCLR). Various techniques and graft choices have been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of each available graft choice, the surgical techniques most utilized, and the reported complications associated with each surgical method.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysesguidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify all articles that included UCLR between January 2002 and October 2022. We included all studies that referenced UCLR graft choice, surgical technique, and/or ulnar nerve transposition. Studies were evaluated in a narrative fashion to assess demographics and report current trends in utilization and complications of UCLR as they pertain to graft choice and surgical techniques over the past 20 years. Where possible, we stratified based on graft and technique.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles were included, reporting on 6671 elbows. The cohort was 98% male, had a weighted mean age of 21 years and follow-up of 53 months. There were 6146 UCLRs (92%) performed with an autograft and 152 (2.3%) that utilized an allograft, while 373 (5.6%) were from mixed cohorts of autograft and allograft. Palmaris longus autograft was the most utilized mUCL graft choice (64%). The most utilized surgical configuration was the figure-of-8 (68%). Specifically, the most common techniques were the modified Jobe technique (37%), followed by American Sports Medicine Institute (ASMI) (22%), and the docking (22%) technique. A concomitant ulnar nerve transposition was performed in 44% of all patients, with 1.9% of these patients experiencing persistent ulnar nerve symptoms after ulnar nerve transposition. Of the total cohort, 14% experienced postoperative ulnar neuritis with no prior preoperative ulnar nerve symptoms. Further, meta-analysis revealed a significantly greater revision rate with the use of allografts compared to autograft and mixed cohorts (2.6% vs. 1.8% and 1.9%, P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Most surgeons performed UCLR with palmaris autograft utilizing a figure-of-8 graft configuration, specifically with the modified Jobe technique. The overall rate of allograft use was 2.3%, much lower than expected. The revision rate for UCLR with allograft appears to be greater compared to UCLR with autograft, although this may be secondary to limited allograft literature.

Posteromedial Osteophyte Resection in Baseball Players Undergoing Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction Has no Effect on Return to Play but Decreases Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Throwing Control

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes and return to play (RTP) rates following ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR) in patients with and without posteromedial elbow impingement (PI) treated with concomitant arthroscopic posteromedial osteophyte resection.

Methods

Baseball players who underwent UCLR performed by the senior surgeon with minimum follow-up of 2 years were surveyed in this retrospective cohort study. Primary outcomes included Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic Shoulder and Elbow (KJOC) score, Andrews-Timmerman score, and RTP rate. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction scores.

Results

35 baseball players were included. Eighteen had no preoperative impingement (mean age: 19.06 ± 3.28 years), while 17 had PI treated with concomitant arthroscopic osteophyte resection (mean age: 20.06 ± 2.68 years). Following surgery, there was no difference in mean Andrews-Timmerman score (no impingement = 91.67 ± 8.04 vs PI = 92.06 ± 7.92, P = .89) nor KJOC score (no impingement = 83.36 ± 11.72 vs PI = 79.88 ± 12.35, P = .40), but there was a decreased mean KJOC throwing control sub-score in the PI group (7.65 ± 2.40 vs 9.11 ± 1.32, P = .04). There was no difference in RTP rate between the groups (no impingement = 72.22%, PI = 94.12%, χ² = 1.28; P = .26). There was significantly higher mean satisfaction score in the no impingement group (96.67 ± 4.58 vs 90.12 ± 11.91; P = .04), and those patients were also more likely to pursue surgical treatment again (94.44% vs 52.94%, χ² = 7.88; P = .005).

Conclusions

There was no difference in RTP rate following ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction in baseball players with and without posteromedial impingement treated with arthroscopic resection. Outcomes on the KJOC and Andrews-Timmerman scores were good to excellent in both groups. Players in the posteromedial impingement group were less satisfied with their outcome, however, and less likely to elect for surgery if they were to sustain the injury again. Additionally, players in the posteromedial impingement group were found to have decreased throwing control on the KJOC questionnaire, which may suggest that the presence of posteromedial osteophytes represent adaptive changes to stabilize the elbow while throwing.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.