Outcomes After Ulnar Nerve In Situ Release During Total Elbow Arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Ulnar nerve (UN) lesions are a significant complication after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), with potentially debilitating consequences. Outcomes from a center, which routinely performs an in situ release of the nerve without transposition, were investigated. METHODS: Eighty-three primary TEAs were retrospectively reviewed for the intraoperative management of the UN and presence of postoperative UN symptoms. RESULTS: Three patients had documented preoperative UN symptoms. One patient had a prior UN transposition. The nerve was transposed at the time of TEA in 4 of the remaining 82 elbows (5%). The indication for transposition in all cases was abnormal tracking or increased tension on the nerve after insertion of the prosthesis. Of the 4 patients who underwent UN transposition, 2 had postoperative UN symptoms. Both were neuropraxias, which resolved in the early postoperative period. The remaining 78 TEAs received an in situ release of the nerve. The incidence of postoperative UN symptoms in the in situ release group was 5% (4 of 78). Two patients had resolution of symptoms, whereas 2 continued to experience significant UN symptoms requiring subsequent transposition. Seven patients had preoperative flexion of less than 100°. Of these, 2 had a UN transposition at the time of TEA. Of the remaining 5 elbows with preoperative flexion less than 100°, 2 had postoperative UN symptoms after in situ release, with 1 requiring subsequent UN transposition. CONCLUSIONS: A 3% incidence of significant UN complications after TEA compares favorably with systematic reviews. We do not believe that transposition, which adds to the handling of the nerve and increases surgical time, is routinely indicated and should rather be reserved for cases with marked limitation of preoperative elbow flexion or when intraoperative assessment by the surgeon deems it necessary. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Total elbow arthroplasty: outcomes after triceps-detaching and triceps-sparing approaches.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is associated with high complication rates compared with other large-joint arthroplasties. The frequency and type of complication may differ, depending on the surgical approach. A comparison of outcomes with triceps-off and triceps-on approaches was investigated. METHODS: Seventy-three patients underwent 83 primary TEAs between 2003 and 2012. Forty-six elbows had a triceps-off approach, and 37 had a triceps-on approach. Results were reviewed at a mean of 4.2 years. Cementing technique was graded according to Morrey's criteria, and clinical outcomes were assessed by means of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the triceps-off and triceps-on groups with regard to the patient's age, gender, preoperative Mayo Elbow Performance Score or range of motion, or previous surgery on the affected elbow. Among patients who underwent a TEA for an inflammatory arthropathy, there was a significant difference in outcome between groups with regard to final flexion, extension, arc of motion, and pronation. Cementing technique in the triceps-off group was adequate in 70%. In the triceps-on group, cementing technique was adequate in 92%. The complication rate in the triceps-off group was 32.6% and included 7 triceps ruptures. Three patients who had attempted repairs of the triceps rupture developed deep infections requiring multiple further surgeries. The complication rate in the triceps-on group was 8.1%. CONCLUSION: A triceps-on approach in TEA results in consistently good clinical outcomes with no risk of triceps rupture, and the approach does not compromise the cement mantle. We believe that this approach will reduce complication rates in TEA.