Chronic complex persistent elbow instability: a consecutive and prospective case series and review of recent literature.

BACKGROUND: Chronic complex persistent elbow instability (CCPEI) is a condition that even expert elbow surgeons find challenging to treat. The results of the few studies that have dealt with the treatment of this condition are conflicting. We describe the surgical results of a consecutive prospective series of patients with CCPEI and provide a review of the recent literature. METHODS: We assessed 21 patients with previous failed surgical or conservative treatment, with a terrible-triad injury in 13, Monteggia-like lesion in 6, humeral shear fracture-dislocation in 1, and radial head fracture-dislocation in 1. Overall, 21 open débridement procedures, 15 ulnar nerve transpositions, 6 ulnar in situ neurolysis procedures, 7 total elbow arthroplasties, 8 radial head arthroplasties, 1 radial head resection with humeroradial anconeus interpositional arthroplasty, 4 coronoid graft reconstructions, 14 ligament retensioning procedures, 3 ulnar nonunion treatments, and 2 ulnar osteotomies were performed. Two dynamic external fixators were applied. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score, quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were used preoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 29.4 months. A significant improvement was found between preoperative and postoperative clinical scores and range-of-motion values. The reintervention and major complication rates were 19% and 23%, respectively. Arthritic evolution was observed in 71% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: CCPEI is a challenging condition with an uncertain prognosis. The variability in patients' pathoanatomic conditions requires customized surgical treatment aimed at elbow stabilizer reconstruction when the ulnohumeral joint is preserved or aimed at joint replacement in case of severe articular degeneration. The time interval between the initial trauma and index surgical procedure significantly affects the feasibility of reconstructive procedures.

Midterm results of radiocapitellar arthroplasty of the elbow: a multicentre prospective study on two different implants.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyze the results of two radiocapitellar prostheses in a large case series followed prospectively, with medium-term follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 31 patients with a mean age of 54 years (27 to 73) were analyzed; nine had primary osteoarthritis (OA) and 17 had post-traumatic OA, three had capitellar osteonecrosis, and two had a fracture. Overall, 17 Lateral Resurfacing Elbow (LRE) and 14 Uni-Elbow Radio-Capitellum Implant (UNI-E) arthroplasties were performed. Pre- and postoperative assessment involved the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH) score, and the modified American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons (m-ASES) score. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 6.8 years (3.8 to 11.5). The mean MEPS, m-ASES, and Q-DASH scores improved significantly by 50 (p < 0.001), 55 (p < 0.001), and 54 points (p < 0.001), respectively, with no differences being detected between the implants. Preoperative pronation and supination were worse in patients in whom the UNI-E was used. Two patients with the UNI-E implant had asymptomatic evidence of gross loosening. CONCLUSION: Radiocapitellar arthroplasty yielded a significant improvement in elbow function at a mean follow-up of 6.8 years, with a high implant survival rate when the LRE was used in patients with primary or post-traumatic OA, without radial head deformity, and when the UNI-E was used in patients in whom radial head excision was indicated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1362-1369.

Terrible triad of the elbow: is it still a troublesome injury?

BACKGROUND: Terrible triad injury (TTI), one of the main patterns of complex elbow instability, is difficult to treat and yields conflicting surgical results. We analyzed prospectively a series of patient affected by TTI and treated according to the current diagnostic and surgical protocols to investigate whether their application allow to obtain more predictable outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed 26 patients with a mean age of 52 years. Preoperative X-rays and CT were performed; all patients were operated by the same elbow surgeon and underwent the same surgical and rehabilitation treatment. Final functional outcome was assessed by the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Quick-Disability of the Arm Shoulder and Hand-score (Q-DASH) and the modified-American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (m-Ases). A radiographic evaluation was also performed. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 31 months. At final evaluation, mean flexion, extension, supination and pronation were 137°, 10°, 77° and 79°, respectively; mean MEPS, m-ASES and Q-DASH scores were respectively 96, 91 and 8 points. Complications observed after first surgery were: elbow stiffness in 5 cases, mild posterolateral instability in 3 cases, chronic subluxation in 1 case. Radiographic evaluation showed secondary arthritis in 9 cases, symptomatic HO in 3 cases and late hardware displacement in 2 cases. Six out of 26 patient underwent reoperation with final satisfactory results. CONCLUSION: The current diagnostic and therapeutic protocols allow obtaining satisfactory clinical outcomes in majority of cases but a high number of major and minor unpredictable complications persist yet. In this series, low compliance, obesity, and extensive soft elbow tissue damage caused by high-energy trauma represented negative prognostic factors unrelated to surgery. On the other hand, the strict application of current algorithms by an expert elbow surgeon appears to improve clinical results by reducing the influence of other avoidable negative prognostic factors well known in current literature, such as the incomplete recognition of injuries, delayed treatment, inadequate treatment of bony and ligamentous injuries, prolonged immobilization and, last but not least, the surgeon's inexperience. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Case series, Treatment study.