Hinged elbow orthoses (HEO) are often used to allow protected motion of the unstable elbow. However, biomechanical studies have not shown HEO to improve the stability of a lateral collateral ligament (LCL) deficient elbow. This lack of effectiveness may be due to the straight hinge of current HEO designs which do not account for the native carrying angle of the elbow. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a custom-designed HEO with adjustable valgus angulation on stabilizing the LCL deficient elbow.

Eight cadaveric upper extremities were mounted in an elbow motion simulator in the varus position. An LCL injured (LCLI) model was created by sectioning of the common extensor origin, and the LCL. The adjustable HEO was secured to the arm and its effect with 0°, 10°, and 20° (BR00, BR10, BR20) of valgus angulation was investigated. Varus-valgus angles and ulnohumeral rotations were recorded using an electromagnetic tracking system during simulated active elbow flexion with the forearm pronated and supinated. We examined 5 elbow states, intact, LCLI, BR00, BR10, BR20.

There were significant differences in varus and ER angulation between different elbow states with the forearm both pronated and supinated (P=0 for all). The LCLI state with or without the brace resulted in significant increases in varus angulation and ER of the ulnohumeral articulation compared to the intact state (P 0.05). The difference between each of the brace angles and the LCLI state ranged from 1.1° to 2.4° for varus angulation and 0.5° to 1.6° for ER.

Although there was a trend toward decreasing varus and external rotation angulation of the ulnohumeral articulation with the application of this adjustable HEO, none of the brace angles examined in this biomechanical investigation was able to fully restore the stability of the LCL deficient elbow. This lack of stabilizing effect may be due to the weight of the brace exerting unintentional varus and torsional forces on the unstable elbow. Previous investigations have shown that the varus arm position is highly unstable in the LCL deficient elbow. Our results demonstrate that application of an HEO with an adjustable carrying angle does not sufficiently stabilize the LCL deficient elbow in this highly unstable position and varus arm position should continue to be avoided in the rehabilitation programs of an LCL deficient elbow.

We measured the tension in the interosseous membrane in six cadaveric forearms using an in vitro forearm testing system with the native radial head, after excision of the radial head and after metallic radial head replacement. The tension almost doubled after excision of the radial head during simulated rotation of the forearm (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in tension in the interosseous membrane between the native and radial head replacement states (p = 0.09). Maximal tension occurred in neutral rotation with both the native and the replaced radial head, but in pronation if the radial head was excised. Under an increasing axial load and with the forearm in a fixed position, the rate of increase in tension in the interosseous membrane was greater when the radial head was excised than for the native radial head or replacement states (p = 0.02). As there was no difference in tension between the native and radial head replacement states, a radial head replacement should provide a normal healing environment for the interosseous membrane after injury or following its reconstruction. Load sharing between the radius and ulna becomes normal after radial head Replacement. As excision of the radial head significantly increased the tension in the interosseous membrane it may potentially lead to its attritional failure over time.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1383–7.

In light of the growing number of elderly osteopenic patients with distal humeral fractures, we discuss the history of their management and current trends. Under most circumstances operative fixation and early mobilisation is the treatment of choice, as it gives the best results. The relative indications for and results of total elbow replacement versus internal fixation are discussed.

Purpose: Unrepairable fractures of the radial head are often treated with radial head arthroplasty. Insertion of a radial head prosthesis that is too thick, or overstuffed, is believed to be a common complication that may result in pain, arthrosis, capitellar wear and decreased elbow range of motion. The purpose of this study was to develop guidelines for determining the appropriate thickness of radial head implants. We hypothesized that

radiographic incongruity of the medial facet of the ulnohumeral joint and that

Method: Six human cadaveric upper extremities were used to evaluate the clinical and radiographic effects of overstuffing of a radial head arthroplasty. Each specimen received an anatomic radial head replacement and then underwent overstuffing with +2 mm, +4 mm, +6 mm and +8 mm lengths. Gross lateral ulnohumeral joint spaces were measured, and anteroposterior radiographs were taken of the elbow from which radiographic medial and lateral ulnohumeral joint spaces were measured.

Results: Intraoperative gapping of the lateral ulnohumeral facet was shown to be highly reliable for detecting radial head overstuffing, increasing from a mean of 0.0 mm at standard length to 1.0 mm with 2 mm overstuffing (p < 0.05). Radiographically, the congruity of the lateral ulnohumeral facet was significantly different with 2 mm of overstuffing as compared to the anatomic length (p < 0.05). The congruity of the medial ulnohumeral facet only became significantly different with +6 mm of overstuffing as compared to the anatomic length (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Radiographic incongruity of the medial facet of the ulnohumeral joint was an unreliable indicator of radial head overstuffing. Radiographic gapping of the lateral ulnohumeral facet demonstrated sufficient sensitivity to diagnose radial head overstuffing when compare to the standard length implant radiographs. Visual gapping of the lateral ulnohumeral facet on the cadaver specimens reliably indicated radial head overstuffing and should be a useful anatomic feature to assess intraoperatively.

Purpose: The successful placement of elbow prostheses, external fixators and ligament reconstructions is dependent on the accurate identification of the elbow’s flexion-extension (FE) axis. In the case of periarticular bone loss, the FE axis must be visually estimated, as the necessary anatomical landmarks may not be available. Hence, referencing the uninjured elbow anatomy may prove beneficial in accurately defining this axis. However, this is contingent on the morphological features being similar between the two sides. Our objective was to compare distal humeral morphology between paired specimens. Our hypothesis was that anthropometric measurements from the distal humerus would be similar to the contralateral side.

Method: CT Images of 25 paired distal humeri were obtained. A right-to-left surface registration was then performed on each pair using the iterative closest point (icp) least-squares algorithm, thus placing each specimen in the same coordinate system.. Anthropometric characteristics measured (and compared between the left and right sides) included the angles of the FE and epicondylar axes in both the coronal and transverse planes, the anterior offset of the FE axis with respect to the humeral shaft axis, the length of the FE axis and the radius of curvature of the capitellum and trochlea.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the left and right humeri for the eight anthropometric characteristics studied (p > 0.05). The mean difference in magnitude for the FE axis angle was approximately 1.0° in both the coronal and transverse planes and the difference in magnitude for 80% of the paired specimens was less than 1.5°.

Conclusion: The anthropometric features of the distal humerus that are typically employed during elbow surgery are similar from side to side. Preoperative imaging of the contralateral normal elbow should be considered in patients with periarticular bone loss where referencing anatomical landmarks of the injured side is not possible. This information can be used as part of a preoperative plan to determine the ideal position of the implant, ligament reconstruction or external fixator during surgery. Contralateral imaging should be particularly useful when combined with computer-assisted elbow surgery.

Purpose: Aseptic loosening is one of the leading causes of failure in total elbow arthroplasty. It is logical to postulate that incorrect implant positioning and alignment may lead to excessive loading and wear which can induce the loosening cascade. However, the effect of implant malalignment on wear inducing loads in the elbow is not yet known. This in-vitro study determined the effect of anterior malpositioning, and varus-valgus (VV) and internal-external (IE) malrotations on humeral stem loading in total elbow arthroplasty.

Method: The humeral, ulnar, and radial components of a linked total elbow arthroplasty were optimally positioned using computer navigation in eight cadaveric elbows, mounted in a load/motion control elbow simulator (age 75yrs, range 42–93; 5 male). A modular, humeral component was employed to generate implant malpositioning errors of ±6° VV, ±8° IE, and 5mm anterior. The implant was instrumented with strain gauges to quantify VV and IE bending loads during elbow flexion with the forearm in supination. Load output was combined using a sum-of-squares technique. Passive flexion was performed with the arm in the varus and valgus orientations; passive and active flexion were performed with the arm in the vertical orientation.

Results: With the arm (humerus) in the vertical orientation, bending loads increased between 418Nmm and 1618Nmm for all malaligned implant positions (p< 0.05). Passive flexion (1354±859Nmm) produced higher resultant loads for the optimally positioned implant than active (819±891Nmm) flexion (p< 0.05). Although it varied during flexion, loading with the arm in varus (2928±1273Nmm) or valgus (2494±743Nmm) orientations resulted in up to a three-fold increase in loading when compared to the vertical orientation (p< 0.01).

Conclusion: These data demonstrate that humeral component malpositioning increases loading in the implant, however further studies are required to determine the long term effect on polyethylene wear and component loosening. Prosthesis designs that replicate the native flexion-extension axis and make use of sophisticated instrumentation or computer assistance to achieve precise positioning during implantation should lead to improved arthroplasty durability. Also, loading was higher with the arm in varus or valgus orientations, suggesting that patients should avoid activities post-operatively that require their elbow to be positioned in this way.

Purpose: Ligaments and osseous constraints are the only static stabilizers in a healthy elbow. Following arthroplasty, the use of semi-constrained, or linked, implants provides a potential third static stabilizer. However, this constraint may increase loading on the prosthesis, and hence accelerate polyethylene wear. The presence of competent collateral ligaments and the radial head would be expected to improve elbow stability and decrease loading on the ulnohumeral articulation. This in vitro study determined the effects of the collateral ligaments, radial head, and implant linkage on kinematics and wear-inducing loads in total elbow arthroplasty.

Method: Eight cadaveric upper extremities (age 73.5yrs; 5 male), were tested using an elbow motion simulator. Humeral, ulnar, and radial components of an elbow arthroplasty were positioned using a computer-assisted technique. Varus-valgus and internal-external bending loads were measured during flexion using an instrumented humeral component. A tracking receiver attached to the ulna recorded its position during active and passive flexion in the vertical orientation, and passive flexion in the varus and valgus orientations. Kinematics and loading were measured with and without implant linkage, with an intact, resected and replaced radial head, and before and after sectioning of the collateral ligaments.

Results: There were no differences in the bending loads with the arm in the vertical orientation regardless of the status of the ligaments, radial head or implant linkage (p> 0.2). Radial head excision produced an increase in valgus angulation of the ulna (6.7±6.4°) but did not influence bending loads in the vertical orientation (p< 0.05). Loading was lowest with the unlinked implant, and with ligaments and radial head intact, with the arm in the valgus (1065±466Nmm) (p< 0.01) and varus (1333±698Nmm) (p< 0.05) orientations.

Conclusion: Our results show that the radial head is an important valgus stabilizer for the prosthesis employed in this investigation. Linkage of the articulation increases implant loading during passive flexion with the arm in the varus and valgus orientations, which may increase implant wear. This suggests that, when using prostheses of this design, linkage of the articulation may be unnecessary if adequate bone stock and ligaments are available, whilst preserving or repairing the collateral ligaments and preserving or replacing the radial head.

Between 1995 and 2006, five intra-articular osteotomies of the head of the radius were performed in patients with symptomatic healed displaced articular fractures. Pre-operatively, all patients complained of persistent painful clicking on movement. Only patients with mild or no degenerative changes of the radial head and capitellum were considered for osteotomy. The operations were performed at a mean of 8.2 months (4 to 13) after injury and the patients were reviewed at a mean of 5.5 years (15 months to 12 years) after the osteotomy.

The average Mayo Elbow Performance Index Score improved significantly from 74 before to 88 after operation, with four patients rated as good or excellent (p < 0.05). The subjective patient satisfaction score was 8.4 on a ten-point scale. All osteotomies healed and there were no complications.

In this small series intra-articular osteotomy of the head of the radius was a safe and effective treatment for symptomatic intra-articular malunion without advanced degenerative changes.

This in-vitro study evaluated the influence of ligament tensioning and the effectiveness of lateral collateral ligament (LCL) repair using transosseous sutures on the initial kinematics and stability of the elbow.

Six fresh upper-extremities were mounted in a motion simulator with tracking system, which enabled both passive and simulated active elbow flexion. The intact elbow was tested then the LCL was sectioned from its humeral origin and repaired with a transosseous suture technique. Locking sutures were placed in the LCL and passed through a humeral bone tunnel entering at the centre of curvature of the capitellum with exit holes in the lateral epicondyle. An actuator pulled on the sutures to achieve 20, 40 and 60 N of LCL repair tension and the sutures were then secured. The dependent variable of this study was the motion pathways of the ulna relative to the humerus. The data were analyzed using a two-way, repeated-measures ANOVA with relevant post-hoc paired t-tests.

With the arm oriented in the horizontal position under varus gravity loading, the repairs tracked in greater valgus than the intact LCL regardless of the repair tension. The larger the initial repair tension, the more the elbows tracked in valgus. Initial tension of 60 N was statistically different than the intact LCL with the forearm in pronation (p=0.04). Both the 40 and 60 N initial tensions were statistically different than the intact LCL with the forearm in supination (p< 0.01).

Repair of the LCL using transosseous sutures effectively restores the varus stability of the elbow. The initial tension of LCL repairs affects the kinematics of the elbow, with a tendency to over-tighten the ligament and pull the elbow into valgus. These data suggest that acute repair of the LCL should be performed using a transosseous suture technique, and that a tension of 20N or perhaps less is sufficient to restore stability.

Accurate implant alignment with the flexion-extension axis of the elbow is likely critical for optimal function and durability following elbow replacement arthroplasty. Implant alignment can be optimised by imaging the contralateral normal elbow prior to surgery and transferring this information to the diseased elbow in the operating room through registration. Successful registration is dependent on the presence of unique anatomical landmarks. Bone loss can create a challenge for registration as key anatomical landmarks are absent, limiting the number of sampling areas. This study investigated the effect of intraoperative sampling area on registration accuracy. We hypothesised that a low registration error can be achieved by acquiring surface data from areas unlikely compromised due to injury and readily available to the surgeon during typical surgical exposures.

CT images of twenty cadaveric distal humeri were acquired. Surface data was acquired from nineteen anatomical landmarks of the distal humerus using a hand-held laser scanner (FastSCANTM, Polhemus). Registration to the CT image was performed for thirty-nine landmark combinations. Only six combinations are discussed for succinctness.

Combining data from the anterior articular surface and humeral shaft, the lowest registration error was achieved in translation (0.8±0.3 mm) and rotation (0.3±0.2°). However, using data from the posterior shaft and proximal medial supracondylar column, a registration error of 1.1±0.2 mm and 0.4±0.2° was achieved.

Based on the results of this study, a low registration error can be achieved by acquiring data from two areas that are located proximal to the articular surface (the proximal medial supracondylar column and posterior humeral shaft), readily available surgically, and unlikely compromised due to distal humeral fractures, non-unions or bone loss due to severe erosive arthritis. Registration error was similar to the reported resolution of the laser scanner. Overall, this study demonstrates the promise for a successful registration of the contralateral normal elbow to physical surface data of the diseased or injured elbow using only a small portion of undamaged bone structure.

A primary mode of failure for total elbow arthroplasty is osteolysis caused by wear debris. Loading of the polyethylene components by off-axis bearing loads is the likely cause of this debris. Load transfer at the elbow is affected by many factors, including the state of the radial head. New implant designs provide the option to use the intact, resected, or implant reconstructed radial head. However, the effect of the radial head state on stability and loading has not yet been investigated in these new implant designs.

We postulated that the presence of the native or prosthetic radial head would reduce the wear-inducing loading patterns experienced by the humeral component and improve joint stability compared to when the radial head is resected.

Seven cadaveric upper extremities, amputated at the mid humerus, were tested in a joint motion simulator equipped with an electromagnetic tracking system to quantify motion. Simulated active flexion was tested with the arm in the dependent position. Passive elbow flexion was conducted with the arm in the varus and valgus gravity-loaded orientations. After testing the intact elbow, the collateral ligaments were sectioned and a linked Latitude ulno-humeral joint replacement was performed (Tornier, Stafford, TX). The humeral component was instrumented with strain gauges for measuring varus-valgus bending and internal-external torsion. Ulno-humeral kinematics and humeral component loading were measured when the radial head was intact, resected, and following radial head arthroplasty.

An increase in varus-valgus laxity was noted following replacement of the ulno-humeral joint with the prosthesis (p< 0.05). There was no difference in joint laxity between the intact radial head, radial head excision or radial head arthroplasty (p> 0.05). Torsion moments increased, while bending loads decreased in the humeral component following radial head excision and were restored following radial head arthroplasty (p< 0.05).

No significant effect of radial head state on varus-valgus joint laxity was observed for the linked ulno-humeral prosthesis. In the absence of collateral ligaments, the observed post-operative increase in varus-valgus laxity can be attributed to the difference in laxity between the native joint and the articular components of the linked implant. Load transfer was altered by radial head excision, which may affect the magnitude of bearing wear and the incidence of aseptic loosening. Further studies are required to determine whether these changes in load transfer influence wear of the polyethylene components or implant loosening.

Our aim was to determine the clinical value of MRI and CT arthrography in predicting the presence of loose bodies in the elbow.

A series of 26 patients with mechanical symptoms in the elbow had plain radiography, MRI and CT arthrography, followed by routine arthroscopy of the elbow. The location and number of loose bodies determined by MRI and CT arthrography were recorded. Pre-operative plain radiography, MRI and CT arthrography were compared with arthroscopy.

Both MRI and CT arthrography had excellent sensitivity (92% to 100%) but low to moderate specificity (15% to 77%) in identifying posteriorly-based loose bodies. Neither MRI nor CT arthrography was consistently sensitive (46% to 91%) or specific (13% to 73%) in predicting the presence or absence of loose bodies anteriorly. The overall sensitivity for the detection of loose bodies in either compartment was 88% to 100% and the specificity 20% to 70%. Pre-operative radiography had a similar sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 71%, respectively.

Our results suggest that neither CT arthrography nor MRI is reliable or accurate enough to be any more effective than plain radiography alone in patients presenting with mechanical symptoms in the elbow.

We have treated 22 patients with an elbow contracture using a static progressive turnbuckle splint for a mean of 4.5 ± 1.8 months. All had failed to improve with supervised physiotherapy and splinting. The mean range of flexion before splintage was from 32 ± 10° to 108 ± 19° and afterwards from 26 ± 10° (p = 0.02) to 127 ± 12° (p = 0.0001). A total of 11 patients gained a ‘functional arc of movement,’ defined as at least 30° to 130°. In eight patients movement improved with turnbuckle splinting, but the functional arc was not achieved. Six of these were satisfied and did not wish to proceed with surgical treatment and two had release of the elbow contracture. In three patients movement did not improve with the use of the turnbuckle splint and one subsequently had surgical treatment.

Our findings have shown that turnbuckle splinting is a safe and effective treatment which should be considered in patients whose established elbow contractures have failed to respond to conventional physiotherapy.