Aims. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate machine-learning-based computerized adaptive tests (CATs) for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and its subscales. Methods. We developed CAT algorithms for the OHS, OKS, OSS, overall OES, and each of the OES subscales, using responses to the full-length questionnaires and a machine-learning technique called regression tree learning. The algorithms were evaluated through a series of simulation studies, in which they aimed to predict respondents’ full-length questionnaire scores from only a selection of their item responses. In each case, the total number of items used by the CAT algorithm was recorded and CAT scores were compared to full-length questionnaire scores by mean, SD, score distribution plots, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation (ICC), and the Bland-Altman method. Differences between CAT scores and full-length questionnaire scores were contextualized through comparison to the instruments’ minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results. The CAT algorithms accurately estimated 12-item questionnaire scores from between four and nine items. Scores followed a very similar distribution between CAT and full-length assessments, with the mean score difference ranging from 0.03 to 0.26 out of 48 points. Pearson’s correlation coefficient and ICC were 0.98 for each 12-item scale and 0.95 or higher for the OES subscales. In over 95% of cases, a patient’s CAT score was within five points of the full-length questionnaire score for each 12-item questionnaire. Conclusion. Oxford Hip Score, Oxford Knee Score, Oxford Shoulder Score, and Oxford Elbow Score (including separate subscale scores) CATs all markedly reduce the burden of items to be completed without sacrificing score accuracy. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):786–794

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 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

We developed a questionnaire to assess patient-reported outcome after surgery of the elbow from interviews with patients. Initially, 17 possible items with five response options were included. A prospective study of 104 patients (107 elbow operations) was carried out to analyse the underlying factor structure, dimensionality, internal and test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the questionnaire items. This was compared with the Mayo Elbow performance score clinical scale, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, and the Short-Form (SF-36) General Health Survey. In total, five questions were considered inappropriate, which resulted in the final 12-item questionnaire, which has been referred to as the Oxford elbow score. This comprises three unidimensional domains, ‘elbow function’, ‘pain’ and ‘social-psychological’; with each domain comprising four items with good measurement properties. This new 12-item Oxford elbow score is a valid measure of the outcome of surgery of the elbow

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

Aims. Acute distal biceps tendon repair reduces fatigue-related pain and minimizes loss of supination of the forearm and strength of flexion of the elbow. We report the short- and long-term outcome following repair using fixation with a cortical button techqniue. Methods. Between October 2010 and July 2018, 102 patients with a mean age of 43 years (19 to 67), including 101 males, underwent distal biceps tendon repair less than six weeks after the injury, using cortical button fixation. The primary short-term outcome measure was the rate of complications. The primary long-term outcome measure was the abbreviated Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score. Secondary outcomes included the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), EuroQol five-dimension three-level score (EQ-5D-3L), satisfaction, and return to function. Results. Eight patients (7.8%) had a major complication and 34 (33.3%) had a minor complication. Major complications included re-rupture (n = 3; 2.9%), unrecovered nerve injury (n = 4; 3.9%), and surgery for heterotopic ossification (n = 1; 1.0%). Three patients (2.9%) overall required further surgery for a complication. Minor complications included neurapraxia (n = 27; 26.5%) and superficial infection (n = 7; 6.9%). A total of 33 nerve injuries occurred in 31 patients (30.4%). At a mean follow-up of five years (1 to 9.8) outcomes were available for 86 patients (84.3%). The median QuickDASH, OES, EQ-5D-3L, and satisfaction scores were 1.2 (IQR 0 to 5.1), 48 (IQR 46 to 48), 0.80 (IQR 0.72 to 1.0), and 100/100 (IQR 90 to 100), respectively. Most patients were able to return to work (81/83, 97.6%) and sport (51/62,82.3%). Unrecovered nerve injury was associated with an inferior outcome according to the QuickDASH (p = 0.005), OES (p = 0.004), EQ-5D-3L (p = 0.010), and satisfaction (p = 0.024). Multiple linear regression analysis identified an unrecovered nerve injury to be strongly associated with an inferior outcome according to the QuickDASH score (p < 0.001), along with infection (p < 0.001), although re-rupture (p = 0.440) and further surgery (p = 0.652) were not. Conclusion. Acute distal biceps tendon repair using cortical button fixation was found to result in excellent patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life. Although rare, unrecovered nerve injury adversely affects outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1284–1291

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

Medium-term results of the Discovery elbow replacement are presented. We reviewed 51 consecutive primary Discovery total elbow replacements (TERs) implanted in 48 patients. The mean age of the patients was 69.2 years (49 to 92), there were 19 males and 32 females (37%:63%) The mean follow-up was 40.6 months (24 to 69). A total of six patients were lost to follow-up. Statistically significant improvements in range movement and Oxford Elbow Score were found (p < 0.001). Radiolucent lines were much more common in, and aseptic loosening was exclusive to, the humeral component. Kaplan–Meier survivorship at five years was 92.2% (95% CI 74.5% to 96.4%) for aseptic loosening. In four TERs, periprosthetic infection occurred resulting in failure. A statistically significant association between infection and increased BMI was found (p = 0.0268). Triceps failure was more frequent after the Mayo surgical approach and TER performed after previous trauma surgery. No failures of the implant were noted. . Our comparison shows that the Discovery has early clinical results that are similar to other semi-constrained TERs. We found continued radiological surveillance with particular focus on humeral lucency is warranted and has not previously been reported. Despite advances in the design of total elbow replacement prostheses, rates of complication remain high. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1359–65

The February 2024 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Does indomethacin prevent heterotopic ossification following elbow fracture fixation?; Arthroscopic capsular shift in atraumatic shoulder joint instability; Ultrasound-guided lavage with corticosteroid injection versus sham; Combined surgical and exercise-based interventions following primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Are vascularized fibula autografts a long-lasting reconstruction after intercalary resection of the humerus for primary bone tumours?; Anatomical versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with limited forward elevation; Tension band or plate fixation for simple displaced olecranon fractures?; Is long-term follow-up and monitoring in shoulder and elbow arthroplasty needed?

The December 2022 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Biceps tenotomy versus soft-tissue tenodesis in females aged 60 years and older with rotator cuff tears; Resistance training combined with corticosteroid injections or tendon needling in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy; Two-year functional outcomes of completely displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents; Patients who undergo rotator cuff repair can safely return to driving at two weeks postoperatively; Are two plates better than one? A systematic review of dual plating for acute midshaft clavicle fractures; Treatment of acute distal biceps tendon ruptures; Rotator cuff tendinopathy: disability associated with depression rather than pathology severity; Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty implications in young patients with post-traumatic sequelae.

The April 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Arthroscopic Bankart repair in athletes: in it for the long run?; Functional outcomes and the Wrightington classification of elbow fracture-dislocations; Hemiarthroplasty or ORIF intra-articular distal humerus fractures in older patients; Return to sport after total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty; Readmissions after shoulder arthroplasty; Arthroscopic Bankart repair in the longer term; Bankart repair with(out) remplissage or the Latarjet procedure? A systematic review and meta-analysis; Regaining motion among patients with shoulder pathology: are all exercises equal?

The December 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Clavicle fractures: is the evidence changing practice?; Humeral shaft fractures, and another meta-analysis…let’s wait for the trials now!; Hemiarthroplasty or total elbow arthroplasty for distal humeral fractures…what does the registry say?; What to do with a first-time shoulder dislocation?; Deprivation indices and minimal clinically important difference for patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; Prospective randomized clinical trial of arthroscopic repair versus debridement for partial subscapularis tears; Long-term follow-up following closed reduction and early movement for simple dislocation of the elbow; Sternoclavicular joint reconstruction for traumatic acute and chronic anterior and posterior instability.

The February 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Arthroscopic capsular release or manipulation under anaesthesia for frozen shoulder?; Distal biceps repair through a single incision?; Distal biceps tendon ruptures: diagnostic strategy through physical examination; Postoperative multimodal opioid-sparing protocol vs standard opioid prescribing after knee or shoulder arthroscopy: a randomized clinical trial; Graft healing is more important than graft technique in massive rotator cuff tear; Subscapularis tenotomy versus peel after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty; Previous rotator cuff repair increases the risk of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Conservative versus operative treatment of acromial and scapular spine fractures following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

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.

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.

Aim

The primary aim of this retrospective study was to identify the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) following elective and trauma elbow arthroplasty. The secondary aim was to determine clinical outcomes with respect to the formation of heterotopic ossification.