Does an Internal Joint Stabilizer and Standardized Protocol Prevent Recurrent Instability in Complex Persistent Elbow Instability?

Surgical revision after previous failed lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) reconstruction and persisting posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) of the Elbow: a retrospective multicentric analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify causes for recurrent PLRI, compare surgical treatment options, and analyze functional outcomes following revision LUCL reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective multicentric case analysis was conducted, including patients who underwent revision LUCL surgery due to recurrent PLRI. Demographic data, surgical techniques (for primary and revision LUCL reconstruction) and postoperative rehabilitation protocols were analyzed, and causes of failure documented. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients with a mean age of 44.3 years (± 12.3) and a median follow-up of 40.9 months (interquartile range, 20.5-77.0) with revision LUCL surgery were included. Recurrent instability was mainly attributed to graft insufficiency or loosening (59.5%) and rupture of the humeral graft (37.8%). Failure of humeral fixation occurred in 48.7% of cases, often due to loosening or widening of the drill hole. While triceps tendon autografts were most commonly used for primary LUCL reconstruction (89.2%), triceps and hamstring tendon autografts were used in revision procedures (35.1% and 32.4%, respectively). Fixation of the humerus was most commonly performed with tenodesis screws (83.8% in primary procedures and 73.0% in revision procedures), and fixation of the ulnaris was generally performed with biceps buttons in both primary procedures (75.7%) and revision procedures (51.4%). Out of 37 patients, eight complications (21.6%) were reported following revision surgery, including three cases of recurrent instability (8.1%). The median QuickDASH score was 42.5 (IQR, 25.4-80.2), and the median PREE score was 13.0 (IQR, 1.0-41.4).

CONCLUSION

Revision LUCL reconstructions remain challenging. The most common causes of failure are graft insufficiency or loosening, and humeral graft rupture, resulting in recurrent PLRI. Additionally, revision LUCL reconstruction is associated with moderate to poor postoperative outcome scores and a relatively high complication rate.

Internal brace augmentation in elbow varus posteromedial rotatory instability (VPMRI) allows early rehabilitation and prevents stiffness

PURPOSE

Varus posteromedial rotatory instability (VPMRI) involves anteromedial coronoid fracture (AMCF), lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL), and medial collateral ligament (MCL) injury. There is no general consensus regarding the surgical treatment, but most surgeons recommend internal fixation of the coronoid along with primary ligament repair. This methodology involves postoperative immobilization to allow ligament healing, occasionally associated with stiffness. Augmentation of one/or both collateral ligaments using a non-absorbable suture tape as an internal brace in VPMRI cases was the subject of the presented study. This method allows brace-free initiation of full elbow range of motion while protecting bony and soft tissue healing.

METHODS

17 patients (13 males and four females) with VPMRI were treated in the center from 2017 to 2021 with internal brace augmentation of collateral ligament along with ORIF (Open reduction & internal fixation)/ reconstruction of the coronoid fragment. All patients were actively mobilized early after surgery. Patients who completed a minimum follow up of 24 months were included in the study. Clinical examination findings at follow-up assessment included ROM (range of motion) recording and instability testing, including special instability tests such as moving valgus stress test, lateral pivot shift test, Posterolateral rotatory drawer test, and gravity-assisted varus stress test. Disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), Visual Analogue Score (VAS), and SEV (Simple Elbow values) were assessed and noted at follow-up.

RESULTS

At 43 months of mean follow-up, none of the patients had significant postoperative contracture, and none had any clinically apparent signs of instability or suffered subluxation or re-dislocation. Postoperative radiographs showed complete fracture/graft healing with no signs of subluxation in all patients. The mean range of motion of the patients was 6.20 (1.00-11.30) to 139.10 (136.20-142.00), with a mean Oxford elbow score (OES) of 42.0 (39.9-44.7). The mean DASH (Disability of Arm, Shoulder & Hand) score was 11.4 (6.7-16.1), the mean MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score) was 91.2 (86.3-96.0), the mean Visual Analogue Score (VAS) score was 0.6 (0.1-1.2), and the mean Simple Elbow value (SEV) was 85.4% (81.1-89.8%).

CONCLUSION

Internal brace augmentation with a non-absorbable suture tape in the setting of VPMRI is a safe and helpful adjunct to coronoid repair/reconstruction and primary ligament repair and allows early mobilization and recovery of elbow stability and range of motion.

The safety of humeroradial fixation using Kirschner wires in children

Humeroradial joint fixation (HJF) has been employed during elbow surgery to maintain stability. Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation is the most commonly used method in children; however, there are valid concerns regarding complications such as breakage. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the safety of humeroradial fixation using K-wires in children. In total, 249 patients diagnosed with Monteggia fractures underwent HJF at our institute from January 2013 to November 2021. All relevant clinical data were collected after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Skin irritation, incision infection, elbow instability, and ulnar healing were followed up. The elbow function was evaluated using Mackay standards. There were 81 females and 168 males (average age, 6.6 ± 2.8 years). Of these patients, 67 did not have ulna fixation, whereas 127 were fixed with K-wires after osteotomy of the proximal ulna or correction of the deformity. The K-wire sizes used for HJF were 1.6, 1.8, and 2 mm in 6, 125, and 118 patients, respectively. The duration of K-wire fixation of the humeroradial joint was 6.6 ± 2.5 weeks on average. Two patients suffered from K-wire breakage and underwent reoperation. There were three patients with K-wire end irritation. According to Mackay standards, the elbow function score was excellent, good, and poor in 188, 41, and 20 patients, respectively, at 6 months postoperatively. No bone bridge was found at the capitellum and radial head fixation sites in any patient. HJF using K-wires combined with a cast is a safe method with a low incidence of complications in children and should be considered a reliable option when humeroradial joint fixation is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Residual Elbow Instability Treated with a Submuscular Internal Joint Stabilizer: Prospective and Consecutive Series with a Minimum Follow-Up of 12 Months

Background: The management of residual elbow instability is a challenging and compelling issue for treating physicians. To overcome inherent drawbacks of dynamic external fixators, the internal joint stabilizer (IJS) has been developed, achieving successful results, but it can sometimes cause local tenderness or anesthetic concerns in the subcutaneous layer. In addition, a bulky anconeus can pull the hardware away from the axis of rotation with an increase in the lever arm and potential issues. To address these issues, an alternative approach has been recently described in which the internal device is covered by the anconeus muscle, becoming submuscular, rather than subcutaneous. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this alternative approach to the IJS application in maintaining a concentric elbow during and after device removal in both acute and chronic scenarios. Methods: Prospective data collection was performed with consecutive patients who had residual elbow instability treated with an IJS (Skeletal Dynamics, Miami, FL) covered by the anconeus from January 2022 and with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Results: At a medium follow-up of 16 months, the 16 patients selected had a mean arc of flexion-extension of 123° (range: 0-140°) and a mean pronation-supination arc of 150° (range: 80-80°). The mean MEPS and DASH scores were 90.3 ± 6.2 and 6.3 ± 5.3, respectively. At the last follow-up, elbow stability and concentric reduction were confirmed with radiographic and clinical examinations. Conclusions: With a minimum follow-up of 12 months, the present study supports the safety and efficacy of the internal device in a submuscular layer. The clinical outcomes and the rate of recurrent instability are comparable to those achieved with a classic subcutaneous position. Similarly, the complication rate is not affected, and removal surgery is no more aggressive than the classic approach.

Ulnohumeral Cross-Pinning in the Management of Traumatic Elbow Instability

PURPOSE

Traumatic elbow instability (subluxation and dislocation) represents a challenging clinical entity that can be complicated by persistent intraoperative instability after attempted stabilization or recurrent postoperative instability. Both static and dynamic supplemental stabilization procedures have been described for cases where fracture fixation and ligament repair fail to restore stability. There is a paucity of prior studies involving ulnohumeral cross-pinning (UCP), which is a type of static supplemental stabilization. Our purpose was to assess complications and outcomes after UCP.

METHODS

We reviewed all surgical cases involving primary and revision UCP for traumatic elbow instability at a single center from 2017-2023. Baseline demographics were recorded. Outcomes including radiographs, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients undergoing UCP were included with a mean follow-up of 27 months. Five cross-pinnings (36%) were performed during revision procedures. Mean visual analog scale (VAS) pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores were 2.4, 34, and 69, respectively. The mean flexion-extension and pronation-supination arcs were 114° and 140°, with 85% achieving at least a 100° arc for flexion and forearm rotation. Five patients (36%) had complications, all of which required reoperation. Two complications involved postoperative instability: one radial head subluxation and one radial head dislocation. Both occurred in revision UCP cases indicated for recurrent postoperative instability.

CONCLUSIONS

Ulnohumeral cross-pinning for persistent and recurrent elbow instability results in maintained ulnohumeral joint alignment, functional arcs of elbow range of motion, and acceptable patient-reported outcome measures, particularly in the setting of a primary procedure indicated for persistent intraoperative instability. Ulnohumeral cross-pinning is a reasonable supplemental stabilization procedure for complex elbow instability.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

The internal joint stabilizer for elbow instability: current concepts

The management of residual elbow instability is challenging in both acute and chronic injuries. Among the available devices, the hinged external fixator provides an additional joint stabilization while allowing an early motion, but it is clumsy and associated to high rate of pin track complications. To address these issues, an internal joint stabilizer (IJS) has been recently developed. An easier recreation of the axis of rotation coupled to the reduced lever arm of the hinge is the root of the consistent and satisfactory results thus far observed. In addition, the device is more comfortable for the patients being an internal stabilizer. Nonetheless, a second surgery for the device removal is necessary, of which the timing is still not standardized. This current concepts paper describes literature regarding outcomes of the IJS focusing on the rate of maintained radiographic joint reduction, the resultant range of motion, and the associated complication profile.

Using External Joint Stabilizer - Elbow (EJS-E) for treating elbow instability-biomechanical assessment and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of using an External Joint Stabilizer - Elbow (EJS-E) for persistent elbow instability based on biomechanical experiments and analysis of clinical results.

METHODS

An EJS-E was used in 17 elbow instability patients. The median follow-up was 26 months (range, 12-42 months). We evaluated the flexion-extension and pronation-supination movement arcs, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Broberg and Morrey classification system, and occurrence of complications in these patients. Moreover, construct stiffness and maximum strength tests were performed to evaluate the strength of the fixation techniques.

RESULTS

The final median range of the extension-to-flexion and pronation-to-supination arc of the elbow was 135° (range, 110°-150°) and 165° (range, 125°-180°), respectively. The VAS pain scores were > 3 in two patients. The median MEPS was 90 (range, 80-100 points). Five patients showed signs of grade I post-traumatic osteoarthritis according to the Broberg and Morrey radiographic classification system, while grade II changes were observed in three patients. Complications included axis pin loosening with pin-tract infection in two patients, transient ulnar nerve symptoms in two patients, heterotopic ossification in two patients, and suture anchors infection in one patient. Based on the biomechanical testing results, the EJS-E exhibited higher stiffness and resisting force in varus loading. It was 0.5 (N/mm) stiffer and 1.8 (N·m) stronger than the internal joint stabilizer (IJS) by difference of medians (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Biomechanical and clinical outcomes show that EJS-E via the posterior approach can restore mobility and stability in all patients, thus serving as a valuable alternative option for the treatment of persistent instability of the elbow.

Radial head arthroplasty vs. open reduction and internal fixation for the treatment of terrible triad injury of the elbow: A systematic review and meta‑analysis update

Terrible triad injury of the elbow (TTIE) is a severe high-energy injury to the elbow, mainly including elbow dislocation, coronoid fracture and radial head fracture. It is difficult to maintain the stability of the elbow joint using traditional conservative treatment, and there is a high risk of redislocation and various complications. Therefore, surgical treatment is currently advocated, mainly for repairing damaged ligaments and reconstructing bony structures, but there is still controversy about the treatment plan for the radial head. The current meta-analysis was conducted to compare the differences in efficacy of radial head arthroplasty (RHA) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of TTIE. Published literature related to the treatment (either ORIF or RHA) of TTIE was searched for in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. According to the search strategy, a total of 1,928 related publications were retrieved. The patient must have been diagnosed with TTIE and required surgery on the radial head. The interventions were RHA and ORIF. Non-case-control studies, case reports, review articles, letters, duplicate reports and literature without sufficient relevant data were excluded. The quality of the literature was evaluated according to the Cochrane systematic review methodology and the Jadad scale. After data extraction, meta-analysis was performed using ReviewManager 5.4 software (Cochrane). A total of 15 studies involving 455 patients (189 who underwent RHA and 266 who underwent ORIF) were included. Range of motion (ROM) of the forearm (pronation-supination arc) after surgery in the RHA group [95% CI (0.28, 9.59); P=0.04] was found to be significantly superior to the ORIF group, with a lower incidence of complications [95% CI (0.22, 0.84); P=0.01]. However, there was no statistically significant difference for the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score nor for ROM of the elbow (flexion-extension arc). Overall, compared with the ORIF group, the RHA group had better forearm rotational ROM and fewer complications after surgery. Therefore, RHA was found to be superior to ORIF in the treatment of TTIE.