Aims. The ulna is an extremely rare location for primary bone tumours of the elbow in paediatrics. Although several reconstruction options are available, the optimal reconstruction method is still unknown due to the rarity of proximal ulna tumours. In this study, we report the outcomes of osteoarticular ulna allograft for the reconstruction of proximal ulna tumours. Methods. Medical profiles of 13 patients, who between March 2004 and November 2021 underwent osteoarticular ulna allograft reconstruction after the resection of the proximal ulna tumour, were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes were measured clinically by the assessment of elbow range of motion (ROM), stability, and function, and radiologically by the assessment of allograft-host junction union, recurrence, and joint degeneration. The elbow function was assessed objectively by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and subjectively by the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) questionnaire. Results. The mean follow-up of patients was 60.3 months (SD 28.5). The mean elbow flexion-extension ROM was 95.8° (SD 21). The mean MSTS of the patients was 84.4 (SD 8.2), the mean TESS was 83.8 (SD 6.7), and the mean MEPS was 79.2 (SD 11.5). All the patients had radiological union at the osteotomy site. Symptomatic osteoarthritic change was observed in three patients (23%), one of whom ended up with elbow joint fusion. Two patients (15.4%) had recurrence during the follow-up period. Surgical complications included two allograft fractures, two plate fractures, three medial instabilities, and two infections. Conclusion. Osteoarticular ulna allograft reconstruction provides acceptable functional outcomes. Despite a high rate of complications, it is still a valuable reconstruction method, particularly in skeletally immature patients who need their distal humerus physis for the rest of hand growth. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):749–757

We believe that this technique has several advantages. After poliomyelitis recovery in the clavicular head of pectoralis major may exceed that in the sternal head; there may be considerable but incomplete recovery in both heads and it is then desirable to use all the active muscle available. Girls and women dislike conspicuous scars; the incisions used in this technique are unobtrusive when the arm is by the side.

We report the case of an eight-month-old girl who presented with a poliomyelitis-like paralysis in her left upper limb caused by enterovirus 71 infection. She recovered useful function after nerve transfers performed six months after the onset of paralysis. Early neurotisation can be used successfully in the treatment of poliomyelitis-like paralysis in children.

Aims. The conventionally described mechanism of distal biceps tendon rupture (DBTR) is of a ‘considerable extension force suddenly applied to a resisting, actively flexed forearm’. This has been commonly paraphrased as an ‘eccentric contracture to a flexed elbow’. Both definitions have been frequently used in the literature with little objective analysis or citation. The aim of the present study was to use video footage of real time distal biceps ruptures to revisit and objectively define the mechanism of injury. Methods. An online search identified 61 videos reporting a DBTR. Videos were independently reviewed by three surgeons to assess forearm rotation, elbow flexion, shoulder position, and type of muscle contraction being exerted at the time of rupture. Prospective data on mechanism of injury and arm position was also collected concurrently for 22 consecutive patients diagnosed with an acute DBTR in order to corroborate the video analysis. Results. Four videos were excluded, leaving 57 for final analysis. Mechanisms of injury included deadlift, bicep curls, calisthenics, arm wrestling, heavy lifting, and boxing. In all, 98% of ruptures occurred with the arm in supination and 89% occurred at 0° to 10° of elbow flexion. Regarding muscle activity, 88% occurred during isometric contraction, 7% during eccentric contraction, and 5% during concentric contraction. Interobserver correlation scores were calculated as 0.66 to 0.89 using the free-marginal Fleiss Kappa tool. The prospectively collected patient data was consistent with the video analysis, with 82% of injuries occurring in supination and 95% in relative elbow extension. Conclusion. Contrary to the classically described injury mechanism, in this study the usual arm position during DBTR was forearm supination and elbow extension, and the muscle contraction was typically isometric. This was demonstrated for both video analysis and ‘real’ patients across a range of activities leading to rupture. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):826–831