Aims. The crucial role of the radial head in the stability of the elbow in terrible triad injury is acknowledged. This retrospective study aims to compare the results of resection of a severely comminuted radial head with or without prosthetic arthroplasty as part of the reconstruction for this injury. Patients and Methods. The outcome of radial head resection was compared with prosthetic arthroplasty in 29 and 15 patients with terrible triad injuries, respectively. There were ten female patients (34.5%) in the resection group and six female patients (40%) in the prosthesis group. The mean age was 40.7 years (. sd. 13.6) in the resection group and 36 years (. sd. 9.4) in the prosthesis group. The mean follow-up of the patients was 24.4 months (. sd. 12) in the resection group and 45.8 months (. sd. 6.8) in the prosthesis group. Outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, and range of movement. Postoperative radiological complications were also recorded. Results. The mean ranges of extension, flexion, supination, and pronation were not significantly different between the two study groups (p = 0.75, p = 0.65, p = 0.82, and p = 0.68, respectively). The mean VAS score, DASH score, and MEPS of the two groups were also not statistically significantly different (p = 0.93, p = 0.19, and p = 0.32, respectively). At the final visit, the elbow was stable in all patients. No patient was found to have developed an Essex–Lopresti injury. Osteoarthritis grade I and II was observed in five and three patients of the resection group, respectively, and four and one patients of the arthroplasty group, respectively. Conclusion. The outcome of patients undergoing treatment for terrible triad injuries is similar whether the patient’s radial head was excised or replaced. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1499–505

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. This study aimed to gather insights from elbow experts using the Delphi method to evaluate the influence of patient characteristics and fracture morphology on the choice between operative and nonoperative treatment for coronoid fractures. Methods. A three-round electronic (e-)modified Delphi survey study was performed between March and December 2023. A total of 55 elbow surgeons from Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America participated, with 48 completing all questionnaires (87%). The panellists evaluated the factors identified as important in literature for treatment decision-making, using a Likert scale ranging from "strongly influences me to recommend nonoperative treatment" (1) to "strongly influences me to recommend operative treatment" (5). Factors achieving Likert scores ≤ 2.0 or ≥ 4.0 were deemed influential for treatment recommendation. Stable consensus is defined as an agreement of ≥ 80% in the second and third rounds. Results. Of 68 factors considered important in the literature for treatment choice for coronoid fractures, 18 achieved a stable consensus to be influential. Influential factors with stable consensus that advocate for operative treatment were being a professional athlete, playing overhead sports, a history of subjective dislocation or subluxation during trauma, open fracture, crepitation with range of movement, > 2 mm opening during varus stress on radiological imaging, and having an anteromedial facet or basal coronoid fracture (O’Driscoll type 2 or 3). An anterolateral coronoid tip fracture ≤ 2 mm was the only influential factor with a stable consensus that advocates for nonoperative treatment. Most disagreement existed regarding the treatment for the terrible triad injury with an anterolateral coronoid tip fracture fragment ≤ 2 mm (O’Driscoll type 1 subtype 1). Conclusion. This study gives insights into areas of consensus among surveyed elbow surgeons in choosing between operative and nonoperative management of coronoid fractures. These findings should be used in conjunction with previous patient cohort studies when discussing treatment options with patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1150–1157

Aims. This study aimed to answer the following questions: do 3D-printed models lead to a more accurate recognition of the pattern of complex fractures of the elbow?; do 3D-printed models lead to a more reliable recognition of the pattern of these injuries?; and do junior surgeons benefit more from 3D-printed models than senior surgeons?. Methods. A total of 15 orthopaedic trauma surgeons (seven juniors, eight seniors) evaluated 20 complex elbow fractures for their overall pattern (i.e. varus posterior medial rotational injury, terrible triad injury, radial head fracture with posterolateral dislocation, anterior (trans-)olecranon fracture-dislocation, posterior (trans-)olecranon fracture-dislocation) and their specific characteristics. First, fractures were assessed based on radiographs and 2D and 3D CT scans; and in a subsequent round, one month later, with additional 3D-printed models. Diagnostic accuracy (acc) and inter-surgeon reliability (κ) were determined for each assessment. Results. Accuracy significantly improved with 3D-printed models for the whole group on pattern recognition (acc. 2D/3D. = 0.62 vs acc. 3Dprint. = 0.69; Δacc = 0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.14); p = 0.025). A significant improvement was also seen in reliability for pattern recognition with the additional 3D-printed models (κ. 2D/3D. = 0.41 (moderate) vs κ. 3Dprint. = 0.59 (moderate); Δκ = 0.18 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.22); p ≤ 0.001). Accuracy was comparable between junior and senior surgeons with the 3D-printed model (acc. junior. = 0.70 vs acc. senior. = 0.68; Δacc = -0.02 (95% CI -0.17 to 0.13); p = 0.904). Reliability was also comparable between junior and senior surgeons without the 3D-printed model (κ. junior. = 0.39 (fair) vs κ. senior. = 0.43 (moderate); Δκ = 0.03 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.10); p = 0.318). However, junior surgeons showed greater improvement regarding reliability than seniors with 3D-printed models (κ. junior. = 0.65 (substantial) vs κ. senior. = 0.54 (moderate); Δκ = 0.11 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.18); p = 0.002). Conclusion. The use of 3D-printed models significantly improved the accuracy and reliability of recognizing the pattern of complex fractures of the elbow. However, the current long printing time and non-reusable materials could limit the usefulness of 3D-printed models in clinical practice. They could be suitable as a reusable tool for teaching residents. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):56–63

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.

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.

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).

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze the results of two radiocapitellar prostheses in a large case series followed prospectively, with medium-term follow-up.

Aims

The Wrightington classification system of fracture-dislocations of the elbow divides these injuries into six subtypes depending on the involvement of the coronoid and the radial head. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and reproducibility of this classification system.

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 purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationships between the degree of injury to the medial and lateral collateral ligaments (MCL and LCL) and associated fractures in patients with a posterolateral dislocation of the elbow, using CT and MRI.

Aims

The aim of the study was to analyze the results of primary tendon reinsertion in acute and chronic distal triceps tendon ruptures (DTTRs) in the general population.

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.