Aims

A review of the literature on elbow replacement found no consistency in the clinical outcome measures which are used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The aim of this study was to define core outcome domains for elbow replacement.

Aims. In patients with a failed radial head arthroplasty (RHA), simple removal of the implant is an option. However, there is little information in the literature about the outcome of this procedure. The aim of this study was to review the mid-term clinical and radiological results, and the rate of complications and removal of the implant, in patients whose initial RHA was undertaken acutely for trauma involving the elbow. Methods. A total of 11 patients in whom removal of a RHA without reimplantation was undertaken as a revision procedure were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 8.4 years (6 to 11). The range of motion (ROM) and stability of the elbow were recorded. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The functional outcome was assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH). Radiological examination included the assessment of heterotopic ossification (HO), implant loosening, capitellar erosion, overlengthening, and osteoarthritis. Complications and the rate of further surgery were also recorded. Results. The indications for removal of the implant were stiffness in five patients, aseptic loosening in five, and pain attributed to the RHA in three. The mean time interval between RHA for trauma to removal was ten months (7 to 21). Preoperatively, three patients had overlengthening of the implant, three had capitellar erosion, six had HO, and four had radiological evidence of loosening. At the final follow-up, the mean the flexion-extension arc improved significantly by 38.2° (95% CI 20 to 59; p = 0.002) and the mean arc of prono-supination improved significantly by 20° (95% CI 0 to 72.5; p = 0.035). The mean pain VAS score improved significantly by 3.5 (95% CI 2 to 5.5; p = 0.004). The mean MEPS improved significantly by 27.5 (95% CI 17.5 to 42.5; p = 0.002). The mean OES improved significantly by 9 (95% CI 2.5 to 14; p = 0.012), and the mean DASH score improved significantly by 23.5 (95% CI 7.5 to 31.6; p = 0.012). Ten patients (91%) had HO and osteoarthritis. Two patients underwent further surgery due to stiffness and pain, respectively. Conclusion. Simple removal of the implant at revision surgery following a failed RHA introduced following trauma provides satisfactory mid-term results with an acceptable risk of complications. Osteoarthritis, instability, and radioulnar impingement were not problems in this series. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1327–1332

Aims

The aim of this study was to review the provision of total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) in England, including the incidence, the characteristics of the patients and the service providers, the types of implant, and the outcomes.

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the kinematics of the elbow following increasing length of the radius with implantation of radial head arthroplasties (RHAs) using dynamic radiostereometry (dRSA). Methods. Eight human donor arms were examined by dRSA during motor-controlled flexion and extension of the elbow with the forearm in an unloaded neutral position, and in pronation and supination with and without a 10 N valgus or varus load, respectively. The elbows were examined before and after RHA with stem lengths of anatomical size, + 2 mm, and + 4 mm. The ligaments were maintained intact by using a step-cut lateral humeral epicondylar osteotomy, allowing the RHAs to be repeatedly exchanged. Bone models were obtained from CT scans, and specialized software was used to match these models with the dRSA recordings. The flexion kinematics of the elbow were described using anatomical coordinate systems to define translations and rotations with six degrees of freedom. Results. The greatest kinematic changes in the elbows were seen with the longest, + 4 mm, implant, which imposed a mean joint distraction of 2.8 mm in the radiohumeral joint and of 1.1 mm in the ulnohumeral joint, an increased mean varus angle of up to 2.4° for both the radius and the ulna, a mean shift of the radius of 2.0 mm in the ulnar direction, and a mean shift of the ulna of 1.0 mm posteriorly. Conclusion. The kinematics of the elbow deviated increasingly from those of the native joint with a 2 mm to a 4 mm lengthening of the radius. This confirms the importance of restoring the natural length of the radius when undertaking RHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1165–1175

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of complex radial head fractures at mid-term follow-up, and determine whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or radial head arthroplasty (RHA) should be recommended for surgical treatment. Methods. Patients who underwent surgery for complex radial head fractures (Mason type III, ≥ three fragments) were divided into two groups (ORIF and RHA) and propensity score matching was used to individually match patients based on patient characteristics. Ultimately, 84 patients were included in this study. After a mean follow-up of 4.1 years (2.0 to 9.5), patients were invited for clinical and radiological assessment. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire score were evaluated. Results. Patients treated with ORIF showed significantly better postoperative range of motion for flexion and extension (121.1° (SD 16.4°) vs 108.1° (SD 25.8°); p = 0.018). Postoperative functional scores also showed significantly better results in the ORIF group (MEPS 90.1 (SD 13.6) vs 78 (SD 20.5); p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the complication rate (RHA 23.8% (n = 10) vs ORIF 26.2% (n = 11)). Implant-related complications occurred in six cases (14.3%) in the RHA group and in five cases (11.9%) in the ORIF group. Conclusion. Irrespective of the patient’s age, sex, type of injury, or number of fracture fragments, ORIF of the radial head should be attempted initially, if a stable reconstruction can be achieved, as it seems to provide a superior postoperative outcome for the patient compared to primary RHA. If reconstruction is not feasible, RHA is still a viable alternative. In the surgical treatment of complex radial head fractures, reconstruction shows superior postoperative outcomes compared to RHA. Good postoperative results can be achieved even after failed reconstruction and conversion to secondary RHA. Therefore, we encourage surgeons to favour reconstruction of complex radial head fractures, regardless of injury type or number of fragments, as long as a stable fixation can be achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1158–1164

Aims

The aims of this study were to identify and evaluate the current literature examining the prognostic factors which are associated with failure of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA).

Aims

Acute and chronic injuries of the interosseus membrane can result in longitudinal instability of the forearm. Reconstruction of the central band of the interosseus membrane can help to restore biomechanical stability. Different methods have been used to reconstruct the central band, including tendon grafts, bone-ligament-bone grafts, and synthetic grafts. This Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, and Long-term (IDEAL) phase 1 study aims to review the clinical results of reconstruction using a synthetic braided cross-linked graft secured at either end with an Endobutton to restore the force balance between the bones of the forearm.

The October 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Arthroscopic capsular shift surgery in patients with atraumatic shoulder joint instability: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial; Superior capsular reconstruction partially restores native glenohumeral loads in a dynamic model; Gene expression in glenoid articular cartilage varies in acute instability, chronic instability, and osteoarthritis; Intra-articular injection versus interscalene brachial plexus block for acute-phase postoperative pain management after arthroscopic shoulder surgery; Level of pain catastrophizing rehab in subacromial impingement: secondary analyses from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (the SExSI Trial); Anterosuperior versus deltopectoral approach for primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a study of 3,902 cases from the Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry with a minimum follow-up of five years; Assessment of progression and clinical relevance of stress-shielding around press-fit radial head arthroplasty: a comparative study of two implants; A number of modifiable and non-modifiable factors increase the risk for elbow medial ulnar collateral ligament injury in baseball players: a systematic review

Aims. The aim of this study was to analyze how proximal radial neck resorption (PRNR) starts and progresses radiologically in two types of press-fit radial head arthroplasties (RHAs), and to investigate its clinical relevance. Methods. A total of 97 patients with RHA were analyzed: 56 received a bipolar RHA (Group 1) while 41 received an anatomical implant (Group 2). Radiographs were performed postoperatively and after three, six, nine, and 12 weeks, six, nine, 12, 18, and 24 months, and annually thereafter. PRNR was measured in all radiographs in the four radial neck quadrants. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), and the patient-assessed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score - Elbow (pASES-E) were used for the clinical assessment. Radiological signs of implant loosening were investigated. Results. The mean follow-up was six years (2 to 14). PRNR started after a mean of 7.5 weeks (SD 2.1) and progressed significantly during the first two years, by the end of which the bone resorption stabilized. PRNR was detected in 81% (n = 45) of patients in Group 1 and 88% (n = 36) in Group 2. The final mean PRNR was 3.0 mm (SD 2.3) in Group 1 and 3.7 mm (SD 2.5) in Group 2. The mean MEPS, QuickDASH, and pASES-E were 95.9 (SD 11.5), 4.4 (SD 9.2), and 94.8 (SD 10.9) in Group 1 and 92.2 (SD 16.2), 9.9 (SD 21.5), and 90.8 (SD 15) in Group 2, respectively. No significant differences were observed between groups in the clinical and radiological outcomes. No correlations were found between PRNR and the clinical results. Conclusion. PRNR after press-fit RHA is a common radiological finding that develops in the first 24 months before stabilizing definitively. PRNR does not affect the clinical results or implant survival in the mid term. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):905–911

The June 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Proximal humerus fractures: what does the literature say now?; Infection risk of steroid injections and subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Surgical versus non-surgical management of humeral shaft fractures; Core outcome set needed for elbow arthroplasty; Minimally invasive approaches to locating radial nerve in the posterior humeral approach; Predictors of bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability; Does the addition of motor control or strengthening exercises improve rotator cuff-related shoulder pain?; Terminology and diagnostic criteria used in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

Aims. Arthroplasties of the elbow, including total elbow arthroplasty, radial head arthroplasty, distal humeral hemiarthroplasty, and radiocapitellar arthroplasty, are rarely undertaken. This scoping review aims to outline the current research in this area to inform the development of future research. Methods. A scoping review was undertaken adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries, limited to studies published between 1 January 1990 and 7 February 2021. Endnote software was used for screening and selection, and included randomized trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, and case series of ten or more patients reporting the clinical outcomes of elbow arthroplasty. The results are presented as the number of types of studies, sample size, length of follow-up, clinical outcome domains and instruments used, sources of funding, and a narrative review. Results. A total of 362 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of total elbow arthroplasty (246; 68%), followed by radial head arthroplasty (100; 28%), distal humeral hemiarthroplasty (11; 3%), and radiocapitellar arthroplasty (5; 1%). Most were retrospective (326; 90%) and observational (315; 87%). The median sample size for all types of implant across all studies was 36 (interquartile range (IQR) 21 to 75). The median length of follow-up for all studies was 56 months (IQR 36 to 81). A total of 583 unique outcome descriptors were used and were categorized into 18 domains. A total of 105 instruments were used to measure 39 outcomes. Conclusion. We found that most of the literature dealing with elbow arthroplasty consists of retrospective observational studies with small sample sizes and short follow-up. Many outcomes have been used with many different instruments for their measurement, indicating a need to define a core set of outcomes and instruments for future research in this area. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1148–1155

Aims. It has been hypothesized that proximal radial neck resorption (PRNR) following press-fit radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is due to stress-shielding. We compared two different press-fit stems by means of radiographs to investigate whether the shape and size of the stems are correlated with the degree of PRNR. Methods. The radiographs of 52 RHAs were analyzed both at 14 days postoperatively and after two years. A cylindrical stem and a conical stem were implanted in 22 patients (group 1) and 30 patients (group 2), respectively. The PRNR was measured in the four quadrants of the radial neck and the degree of stem filling was calculated by analyzing the ratio between the prosthetic stem diameter (PSD) and the medullary canal diameter (MCD) at the proximal portion of the stem (level A), halfway along the stem length (level B), and distally at the stem tip (level C). Results. Overall, 50 of the 52 patients displayed PRNR. The mean PRNR observed was 3.9 mm (0 to 7.4). The degree of endomedullary stem filling at levels A, B, and C was 96%, 90%, and 68% in group 1, and 96%, 72%, and 57%, in group 2, with differences being significant at levels B (p < 0.001) and C (p < 0.001). No significant correlations emerged between the severity of PRNR and the three stem/canal ratios either within each group or between the groups. Conclusion. PRNR in press-fit RHA appears to be independent of the shape and size of the stems. Other causes besides stem design should be investigated to explain completely this phenomenon. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):530–535

Aims. To evaluate the outcomes of terrible triad injuries (TTIs) in mid-term follow-up and determine whether surgical treatment of the radial head influences clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods. Follow-up assessment of 88 patients with TTI (48 women, 40 men; mean age 57 years (18 to 82)) was performed after a mean of 4.5 years (2.0 to 9.4). The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score were evaluated. Radiographs of all patients were analyzed. Fracture types included 13 Mason type I, 16 type II, and 59 type III. Surgical treatment consisted of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in all type II and reconstructable type III fractures, while radial head arthroplasty (RHA) was performed if reconstruction was not possible. Results. At follow-up the mean MEPS was 87.1 (20 to 100); mean OES, 36.9 (6 to 48); and mean DASH score, 18.6 (0 to 90). Mean movement was 118° (30° to 150°) for extension to flexion and 162° (90° to 180°) for pronation to supination. The overall reoperation rate was 24%, with nine ORIF, ten RHA, and two patients without treatment to the radial head needing surgical revision. When treated with RHA, Mason type III fractures exhibited significantly inferior outcomes. Suboptimal results were also identified in patients with degenerative or heterotopic changes on their latest radiograph. In contrast, more favourable outcomes were detected in patients with successful radial head reconstruction after Mason type III fractures. Conclusion. Using a standardized protocol, sufficient elbow stability and good outcomes can be achieved in most TTIs. Although some bias in treatment allocation, with more severe injuries assigned to RHA, cannot be completely omitted, treatment of radial head fractures may have an independent effect on outcome, as patients subjected to RHA showed significantly inferior results compared to those subjected to reconstruction, in terms of elbow function, incidence of arthrosis, and postoperative complications. As RHA showed no apparent advantage in Mason type III injuries between the two treatment groups, we recommend reconstruction, providing stable fixation can be achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1620–1628

Post-traumatic elbow stiffness is a disabling condition that remains challenging for upper limb surgeons. Open elbow arthrolysis is commonly used for the treatment of stiff elbow when conservative therapy has failed. Multiple questions commonly arise from surgeons who deal with this disease. These include whether the patient has post-traumatic stiff elbow, how to evaluate the problem, when surgery is appropriate, how to perform an excellent arthrolysis, what the optimal postoperative rehabilitation is, and how to prevent or reduce the incidence of complications. Following these questions, this review provides an update and overview of post-traumatic elbow stiffness with respect to the diagnosis, preoperative evaluation, arthrolysis strategies, postoperative rehabilitation, and prevention of complications, aiming to provide a complete diagnosis and treatment path.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:576–584.

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of Monteggia-like lesions at midterm follow-up and to determine whether the surgical treatment of the radial head influences the clinical and radiological results. Patients and Methods. A total of 78 patients with a Monteggia-like lesion, including 44 women and 34 men with a mean age of 54.7 years (19 to 80), were available for assessment after a mean 4.6 years (2 to 9.2). The outcome was assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), Mayo Modified Wrist Score (MMWS), and The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. Radiographs were analyzed for all patients. A total of 12 Mason type I, 16 type II, and 36 type III fractures were included. Surgical treatment consisted of screw fixation for all type II and reconstructable type III fractures, while radial head arthroplasty (RHA) or excision was performed if reconstruction was not possible. Results. The mean MEPS was 88.9 (40 to 100), mean OES was 40.1 (25 to 48), mean MMWS was 88.1 (50 to 100), mean DASH score was 14.7 (0 to 60.2), and mean movement was 114° (. sd. 27) in extension/flexion and 155° (. sd. 37) in pronation/supination. Mason III fractures, particularly those with an associated coronoid fracture treated with RHA, had a significantly poorer outcome. Suboptimal results were also identified in patients who had degenerative changes or heterotopic ossification on their latest radiograph. In contrast, all patients with successful radial head reconstruction or excision had a good outcome. Conclusion. Good outcomes can be achieved in Monteggia-like lesions with Mason II and III fractures, when reconstruction is possible. Otherwise, RHA is a reliable option with satisfactory outcomes, especially in patients with ligamenteous instability. Whether the radial head should be excised remains debatable, although good results were achieved in patients with ligamentous stability and in those with complications after RHA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1512–1519