Study purpose and background

There is growing concern that current outcome measures of back pain trials do not comprehensively capture what is important to patients. Some researchers believe we need to incorporate patients in the development of ‘next-generation’ outcomes. As a preliminary step to patient-interviews, we aimed to articulate ‘important change’ from the patients' perspective, as represented in reports of qualitative investigations inadvertently or directly exploring this.

The functional outcomes of twenty-eight patients with capitellum and trochlea fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation were evaluated at a mean follow-up of fifty-five ± thirty-three months. Patients were independently evaluated by a series of questionnaires, radiographs, physical examination and strength testing. Patients with simple fractures did better than those with complicated fractures. The average DASH score was 19/100 and the average ROM was 20 – 130°. Two fractures did not unite and required conversion to total elbow arthroplasty.

A classification system is proposed based on fracture patterns, surgical technique and clinical outcomes.

Capitellum and trochlea fractures are uncommon fractures of the distal humerus. There is limited information about the functional outcome of patients managed with open reduction and internal fixation.

The functional outcome of twenty-eight patients (average age: forty-three ± thirteen years [range, twenty – seventy-one]) who were treated with open reduction and internal fixation for capitellum and trochlea fractures was evaluated at a mean follow-up of fifty-five ± thirty-three months (range, fourteen – one hundred and twenty-one). Patient outcomes were assessed by physical examination, radiographs, range of motion measurements, strength testing and self reported questionnaires (DASH, SF-36 ASES and PREE elbow scales).

There were eleven fractures involving the capitellum, four involving the capitellum and trochlea as one piece and thirteen in which the capitellum and trochlea were separate fragments. These fractures were further defined by the presence or absence of posterior comminution. Fourteen had isolated fractures and fourteen were associated with other elbow, forearm or wrist injuries. Patients with complicated fractures required more extensive surgery, had more complications resulting in secondary procedures and had poorer outcomes compared to those with simple fractures. The average DASH score (19/100), quality of life scores (SF-36: Physical=46, Mental=49) and the average ROM (20 – 130°) suggest favorable patient outcomes overall.

Patients with simple fractures had better results than those with more complicated fractures. A fracture classification system based on fracture patterns, surgical technique and clinical outcomes is proposed.

This study prospectively evaluated the functional outcome and strength of patients after rotator cuff surgery. Thirty-three patients were evaluated pre-operatively and post-operatively for one year. Each patient underwent clinical evaluation of shoulder range of motion and machine strength testing. Additionally they completed the SF-36, DASH, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff, and Washington Simple Shoulder Test questionnaires. The study showed that patients with small and large tears showed improvement after surgery. Smaller tears had better outcomes. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) patients had lower functional outcomes despite strength and range of motion showing no difference with non- WSIB patients.

This study prospectively evaluated strength and functional outcome after rotator cuff surgery.

Thirty-three patients, mean age 55.6, were evaluated pre-operatively and post-operatively for one year. Twenty-eight patients were male and five were female. Seventeen patients involved the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and sixteen patients had non-WSIB related tears. The patients were also divided based on tear size into two groups (< 3cm and > 3.1cm). Allpatients underwent an acromioplasty. Twenty-two also had an open or mini-open repair. Two underwent arthroscopic repair. Five patients had a debridement and four patients had Latissimus Dorsi Transfer. All had an evaluation of range of motion(ROM), machine isometric strength testing, and completion of the SF-36, DASH, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) and Washington Simple Shoulder Test (WST) at each visit.

Based on tear size, there was a significant difference in functional outcome on the SF-36 (p< 0.05), DASH (p< 0. 005), WORC (p< 0.001) and WST (p< 0.01). Within each group there was significant improvement in strength (p< 0.01) over time. The smaller tear group showed significantly greater strength. The ROM was improved within each group over time (p< 0.01), though no statistical difference was determined between groups. In comparing the sample based on WSIB status, functional outcomes were better in Non-WSIB patients (p< 0.01). Although no statistical difference in strength and ROM was noted.

Patients with both small and large tears showed improved functional outcome, strength and ROM over time, with the smaller tear group having better outcomes. WSIB patients had lower functional outcomes despite strength and ROM showing no difference between the two groups.

Purpose: Metal radial head arthroplasty is a proven technique for the treatment of complex radial head fractures. Little previous research is available on the utility and longevity of metal radial head arthroplasty for elbow reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome of patients with metal radial head arthroplasty (RHA) for elbow reconstruction.

Methods: This was a retrospective review from one institution with three senior orthopaedic surgeons. 23 consecutive patients with 23 RHA were included in the study, 4 patients were lost to follow up. RHA was performed for conditions of rheumatoid arthritis, post traumatic radial head nonunion, post traumatic radial head malunion, elbow instability following previous radial head excision and failed silicone radial head implants. Patients were excluded from the study if they were treated for an acute injury with RHA (under 2 months from injury). There were 8 males and 15 females with a minimum of 2 year follow up. Analysis included chart review, personal interview, physical examination, radiographs and strength testing. Region specific questionnaires were used including: DASH, ASES, MEPI, PRWE, WOS and SF-36. Mean follow up was 9 yrs.

Results: Mayo elbow performance scores were excellent in 11 patients, good in 4 patients, fair in 4 patients and poor in 4 patients. Subjective patient satisfaction was averaged at 8.4 out of 10. Patients demonstrated significantly less isometric strength and grip strength in the affected versed unaffected elbow. There was no statistically significant difference seen in ulnar variance or ulnohumeral joint space between the affected and unaffected limbs.

Conclusions: In conclusion, RHA for elbow reconstruction is a safe procedure that provides patients with long term functional ROM and pain relief.

The reliability and accuracy of plain radiographs, MRI and CT Arthrography to detect the presence of loose bodies was evaluated in twenty-six patients with mechanical elbow symptoms. The location of loose bodies found by the imaging studies was compared to arthroscopic findings. Overall sensitivity for the detection of loose bodies was 88 – 100% and specificity was 20 – 70%. Plain radiographs had a similar sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 71% respectively. MRI and CT Arthrography were similar to plain radiography, suggesting that routine use of these modalities is not indicated.

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical utility of MRI and CT Arthrography (CTA) to reliably and accurately predict the presence of loose bodies in the elbow.

Twenty-six patients with mechanical elbow symptoms underwent plain radiography, MRI and CTA, followed by standard elbow arthroscopy. Three musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed the ‘blinded’ plain radiographs with both the MRI and CTA at separate sittings. The location and number of loose bodies on the MRI and CTA were recorded. The preoperative plain radiographs, MRI and CTA were compared to the arthroscopic findings.

Agreement between radiologists was higher for the number of loose bodies identified in the posterior compartment (ICC=0.72 for both MRI and CTA) than in the anterior compartment (ICC=0.41 and 0.52 for MRI and CTA respectively). The correlation between the number of lose bodies observed on MRI and CTA compared to those found arthroscopically was also higher in the posterior compartment (r=0.54–0.85) than in the anterior compartment (r=0.01–0.45). Both MRI and CTA had excellent sensitivity (92–100%) but moderate to low specificity (15–77%) in identifying posteriorly located loose bodies. Neither MRI nor CTA were consistently sensitive (46–91%) or specific (13–73%) in predicting anterior loose bodies. Overall sensitivity for the detection of loose bodies in either compartment was 88–100% and specificity was 20–70%. The preoperative radiographs had a similar sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 71% respectively.

MRI and CTA were similar to plain radiography in the prediction of elbow loose bodies.