Elbow hemiarthroplasty and total elbow arthroplasty provided a similar functional outcome for unreconstructable distal humeral fractures in patients aged 60 years or older: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is an established treatment for elderly patients with distal humeral fractures not amenable to stable internal fixation (unreconstructable). In recent years, there has been increasing interest in elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA), a treatment option which does not entail restrictions on weight-bearing as opposed to TEA. These 2 treatments have not been compared in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcome of EHA and TEA for the treatment of unreconstructable distal humeral fractures in elderly patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). Patients were included between January 2011 and November 2019 at one of 3 participating hospitals. The inclusion criteria were an unreconstructable distal humeral fracture, age ≥60 years and independent living. The final follow-up took place after ≥2 years. The primary outcome measure was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score. Secondary outcome measures were the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the EQ-5D index, range of motion (flexion, extension, pronation, and supination) and grip strength. RESULTS: Forty patients were randomized to TEA (n = 20) and EHA (n = 20). Five patients died before completing the final follow-up, leaving 18 EHA and 17 TEA patients for analysis. There were 31 women. The mean age was 74.0 (SD, 8.5) years in the EHA group and 76.9 (SD, 7.6) in the TEA group (P = .30). The mean DASH score was 21.6 points in the EHA group and 27.2 in the TEA group (P = .39), a difference of -5.6 points (95% CI: -18.6 to 7.5). There were no differences between treatment with EHA and TEA for the mean values of the MEPS (85.0 vs. 88.2, P = .59), EQ-5D index (0.92 vs. 0.86, P = .13), extension (29° vs. 29°, P = .98), flexion (126° vs. 136°, P = .05), arc of flexion-extension (97° vs. 107°, P = .25), supination (81° vs. 75°, P = .13), pronation (78° vs. 74°, P = .16) or grip strength (17.5 kg vs. 17.2 kg, P = .89). There were 6 adverse events in each treatment group. CONCLUSION: In this RCT, both elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA) and total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) resulted in a good and similar functional outcome for unreconstructable distal humeral fractures in elderly patients at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

Arthroplasty as primary treatment for distal humeral fractures produces reliable results with regards to revisions and adverse events: a registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Primary prosthetic replacement has become an accepted method for the treatment of complex distal humeral fractures. The present study investigated implant survival and adverse events related to this procedure based on available Swedish registries and examined the completeness of the Swedish Elbow Arthroplasty register. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated in Sweden with a primary elbow replacement due to a distal humeral fracture between 1999 and 2014 were identified through 3 different registries: The Swedish Elbow Arthroplasty Register, National Board of Health and Welfare inpatient register, and local registries of all orthopedic departments. Prosthetic survival was examined using Cox regression analysis with Kaplan-Meier plots. Adverse events, defined as medical treatment of the affected elbow besides revision, were analyzed separately. The study included 406 elbows in 405 patients, and no register was complete. RESULTS: Implant survival at 10 years was 90% (95% confidence interval, 85%-96%), but only 45 patients had an observation time of 10 years or more because 46% of the patients had died, resulting in a mean observation time of 67 (standard deviation, 47) months. An increase in the use of hemiarthroplasties and a proportional decrease of total elbow arthroplasties was detected. There were 18 revisions (4%), and 26 patients (6%) experienced an adverse event, of whom 16 (4%) required surgery. The completeness of the Swedish Elbow Arthroplasty Register regarding primary arthroplasty was 81%. CONCLUSION: Primary arthroplasty as treatment of distal humeral fractures produces reliable results with regards to revisions and other adverse events.

A radial head prosthesis appears to be unnecessary in Mason-IV fracture dislocation.

Background and purpose - Previous reports on elbow injuries with concomitant comminute radial head fracture are difficult to interpret, since they include an array of different soft-tissue and bony injuries around the elbow. We focused on Mason-IV fracture dislocations of the elbow and retrospectively reviewed 2 treatment options: radial head resection or replacement with a radial head arthroplasty, both in combination with lateral ligament repair. Patients and methods - In Linköping, 18 consecutive patients with Mason-IV fracture dislocation and with a median age of 56 (19-79) years were treated with a radial head arthroplasty. In Malmö, 14 consecutive patients with a median age of 50 (29-70) years were treated for the same injury with radial head resection. With a follow-up of at least 2 years (Linköping: median 58 months; Malmö: median 108 months), the outcome was assessed using the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH), range of movement, instability, and plain radiographs. Results - There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding MEPS, DASH, or range of motion. The rate of additional surgery was higher in patients treated with arthroplasty. Ulno-humeral osteoarthritis was more pronounced in the group treated with radial head resection, but the follow-up time was longer in these patients. Functional results and range of motion tally well with previous reports on similar injuries. Interpretation - Functional results did not improve by using a press-fit radial head arthroplasty in Mason-IV fracture dislocation of the elbow. Secondary osteoarthritis after resection of the radial head is a concern, but it did not affect the functional outcome during the follow-up time.

Extensive soft tissue lesions in redislocated after simple elbow dislocations.

BACKGROUND: The majority of simple elbow dislocations (no associated fractures) can be treated nonoperatively with a short period of immobilization followed by guided aftercare. This case series describes the soft tissue injuries in a rare subset of patients in whom the elbow redislocated despite adequate immobilization. METHODS: During a 6-year period, 8 patients were identified. They were all treated with reduction and casting in 90° of flexion or more. At 1 week of follow-up, redislocation had occurred in all patients and open soft tissue repair was performed. The injuries were documented and the patients were followed up clinically and with radiographs. RESULTS: Extensive soft tissue injuries, including both collateral ligament injuries and muscle origin avulsions from either or both sides, were found in all patients. The functional result at follow-up was satisfactory in all patients. CONCLUSION: Vast soft tissue injuries including both collateral ligaments and muscle origins should be expected in the event of early severe instability of a dislocated elbow joint.

Subjective ulnar nerve dysfunction commonly following open reduction, internal fixation (ORIF) of distal humeral fractures and in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve.

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the frequency of persistent ulnar affection in patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of distal humeral fractures without ulnar nerve transposition or mobilisation. Eighty-two patients (53 women), mean age 62 years, were, at a mean of 48 months, reviewed through medical records and a subjective evaluation form concerning ulnar nerve problems. Ulnar nerve affliction, in most cases regarded as mild, was experienced by 22 patients (27%; 14 women) and significantly associated with multiple surgeries. Three patients had been operated with late neurolysis and one with transposition without reported improvement. The proportion of ulnar nerve dysfunction was equally common regardless of medial or lateral plating. ORIF with plate fixation and without ulnar nerve transposition seems to be an acceptable option for patients with distal humeral fractures. The frequency of ulnar nerve affection in our series does not appear higher than previously reported. Subjective ulnar nerve symptoms were, however, relatively common and appear related to the trauma itself, the surgery, or the post-operative management which highlights the need for further analysis of these factors.

The Kudo humeral component as primary hemiarthroplasty in distal humeral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus in the elderly is challenging. In patients with very distal fractures and severe comminution, primary arthroplasty has been advocated. Recently, a few reports have described promising results of hemiarthroplasty. This study describes the medium-term results of using the Kudo humeral implant (Biomet Ltd, Bridgend, U.K.) as replacement of the distal humerus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight women (mean age, 79 years) were treated. Follow-up was conducted at a mean of 4 years after the procedure and consisted of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), radiographic images, and range of motion (ROM). RESULTS: All patients had a good or excellent outcome according to the MEPS. Mean ROM was 31° to 126°. Radiographic signs of attrition of the ulna were observed in 3 patients but did not correlate with the functional outcome. A periprosthetic fracture occurred in 1 patient 3 years after the index operation, and ROM was unsatisfactory in 1 patient. No other complications were observed. CONCLUSION: The use of the Kudo humeral implant as a hemiarthroplasty resulted in a reasonable functional outcome in the medium-term, but the radiographic signs of attrition suggest that the implant is not recommended as a hemiprosthesis.