Elbow dislocation with irreparable fracture radial head

Background:

Treatment of elbow dislocation with irreparable radial head fracture needs replacement of radial head to achieve stability of elbow. An alternate method in cases of elbow dislocation with radial head fracture can be resection of radial head with repair of medial collateral ligament. We report a retrospective analysis of cases of elbow dislocation with irreparable radial head treated by excision head of radius and repair of MCL.

Materials and Methods:

Nine patients of elbow dislocation with associated irreparable fractures of the head of the radius were included in this analysis (6 F:3 M, Age: 35-47 years). Radial head excision was done through the lateral approach and MCL was sutured using no 3 Ethibond using medial approach. Above elbow plaster was given for 6 weeks and gradual mobilization was done thereafter. All patients were assessed at final followup using Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS).

Results:

Mean followup was 19.55 ± 7.12 months (range 14-36 months). There was no extension deficit when compared to opposite side with mean range of flexion of 138.8° ± 6.97° (range 130 -145°). Mean pronation was 87.7° ± 4.4° (range 80-90°) and mean supination was 87.7 ± 4.62° (range 80-90°). The mean MEPS was 98.8 ± 3.33 (range 90-100). No patient had pain, sensory complaints, subluxation or redislocation. All were able to carry out their daily activities without disability.

Conclusion:

Radial head excision with MCL repair is an acceptable option for treatment of patients with elbow dislocation and irreparable radial head fracture.     

Repair Versus Non‐Repair of Lateral Ulnar Collateral Ligament in Elbow Varus Posteromedial Rotatory Instability Treatment: A Comparative Study

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of repairing and not repairing the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) when surgically treating elbow varus posteromedial rotatory instability (PMRI).MethodsIn this retrospective study spanning June 2014 to February 2019, 24 patients with elbow PMRI who were treated surgically were assigned to group RL (Repair LUCL) or group NL (Non‐repair LUCL) depending on whether the LUCL was repaired. Hospitalization time, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and related complications were reviewed. The elbow range of motion (ROM), the visual analog scale (VAS), the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score were used for functional assessment.ResultsAmong the 24 patients with PMRI, 15 were assigned to group RL and nine were assigned to group NL. The mean blood loss (184.66 ± 20.3 vs 207.33 ± 19.447, P < 0.001), the operation time (98.88 ± 12.693 min vs 184.66 ± 20.3 min, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in group RL compared to group NL. There were no significant differences between the two groups in time until surgery and follow‐up time (6.66 ± 1.838 vs 6.11 ± 1.900 days, 25.53 ± 2.099 vs 26.11 ± 2.891 months, P = 0.577, P = 0.486). All of the patients achieved bone union. The elbow flexion‐extension ROM (122.00° ± 3.162°vs 121.11° ± 3.333° at 12 months, P = 0.520) and pronation‐supination ROM (154.53° ± 3.335° vs 155.55° ± 4.639° at 12 months, P = 0.537). Both groups achieved similar results in MEPS score (90.53 ± 2.695 vs 89.77 ± 3.865, P = 0.578) and DASH (9.77 ± 1.897 vs 9.99 ± 1.550, P = 0.772) score at the final follow‐up. And the MEPS score revealed excellent results (87% in group RL, 89% in group NL).The VAS scores decreased significantly in group RL (from 6.13 ± 0.990 to 1.93 ± 0.593) and group NL (from 5.77 ± 1.481 to 1.88 ± 0.781), and no significant differences in preoperative or final follow‐up were observed between the two groups (P = 0.487, P = 0.876). Complications observed in group NL with one patient occurred cubital tunnel syndrome 3 months after the operation, the patient underwent ulnar nerve simple neurolysis and the symptoms were relieved after 3 weeks.ConclusionFor patients with elbow PMRI, satisfactory functional outcomes can be yielded with non‐repair of the LUCL as long as the stable elbow joint is performed during operation.     

Unstable Simple Elbow Dislocation Treated with the Repair of Lateral Collateral Ligament Complex

Background

Unstable simple elbow dislocation (USED) repair is challenged by the maintenance of joint reduction; hence, primary repair or reconstruction of disrupted ligaments is required to maintain the congruency and allow early motion of the elbow. We evaluated the effectiveness and the outcome of lateral collateral ligament (LCL) complex repair with additional medial collateral ligament (MCL) repair in cases of USED.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 21 cases of diagnosed USED without fractures around the elbow that were treated with primary ligament repair. In all cases, anatomical repair of LCL complex with or without common extensor origin was performed using suture anchor and the bone tunnel method. Next, the instability and congruency of elbow for a full range of motion were evaluated under the image intensifier. MCL was repaired only if unstable or incongruent elbow was observed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) and radiographic outcomes on last follow-up images.

Results

All cases achieved a stable elbow on radiographic and clinical results. LCL complex repair alone was sufficient to obtain the stable elbow in 17 of 21 cases. Four cases required additional MCL repair after restoration of the LCL complex. The overall mean MEPS was 91 (range, 70 to 100): excellent in 12 cases, good in 7 cases, and fair in 2 cases. All 17 cases with LCL complex repair only and 2 of 4 cases with additional MCL repair had excellent or good results by MEPS.

Conclusions

USED requires surgical treatment to achieve a congruent and stable joint. If the repair of lateral stabilizer such as LCL complex acquires enough joint stability to maintain a full range of motion, it may not be necessary to repair the medial stabilizer in all cases of USED.     

Non-anatomical reconstruction of lateral ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow after tumor resection

We present the case of an 80-year-old man with a tumor recurrence on his right arm 6 years after initial treatment. The lateral aspect of the elbow joint, involving overlaying skin, muscles, tendons, joint capsule, lateral collateral ligament complex, the lateral 1/3 of the capitellum, and lateral epicondyle of humerus were excised in the tumor resection. Intraoperative assessment revealed multidirectional instability of the elbow, and joint stabilization was needed. Because the lateral epicondyle was resected, graft placement in an anatomical position was impossible to carry out. Therefore, non-anatomical reconstruction of lateral ulnar collateral ligament with palmaris longus tendon graft was performed. The skin was reconstructed using an antegrade pedicled radial forearm flap. For wrist extension reconstruction, the pronator quadratus tendon was transferred to the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon. One year after the operation, elbow range of motion was 5–130°. The patient remains symptom free. The Mayo elbow performance score is good. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society rating score is excellent. To our knowledge, this is the first report of an elbow lateral ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction after tumor resection.     

Elbow instability secondary to lateral epicondylar nounion in an adult

Symptomatic nonunion of the lateral epicondyle of the elbow is a rare injury. We present the case of a 36-year-old woman who complained of elbow pain and instability several months after a conservatively treated lateral epicondyle fracture that evolved into nonunion. In order to reestablish elbow stability, the patient underwent removal of the nonunited epicondylar fragment and ligament repair, with excellent clinical outcome.     

Efficacy of a radial-based thumb metacarpophalangeal-stabilizing orthosis for protecting the thumb metacarpophalangeal joint ulnar collateral ligament

Study Design

Basic research (biomechanics).

肘内侧副韧带损伤的病理发现及其临床意义

目的　探讨肘内侧副韧带损伤的病理发现及其临床意义。方法　肘内侧副韧带严重损伤的病例 6 4例 ,前臂屈肌起点前部、中部和后部撕裂。采用不同方法缝合。结果　随访 2年至 8年 ,疗效良好 ,肘关节侧向稳定 ,仅见肘伸直受限 5°和肘屈伸受限 10°各 1例。结论　肘内侧副韧带断裂宜及早手术 ,切除小撕脱骨片 ,恢复和保持肌起点和韧带断端的正常接触。     

肘关节外侧副韧带复合体修复治疗急性后外侧旋转不稳定的临床疗效

目的探讨肘关节外侧副韧带复合体修复治疗急性后外侧旋转不稳定的临床疗效。 方法选择2013年6月至2017年12月上海新华医院连续收治的急性肘关节后外侧旋转不稳定患者20例,其中手术组11例,对照组（保守治疗）9例。20例患者均有肘关节脱位史。在麻醉下检查时,20例患者侧方轴移试验和后外侧抽屉试验均为阳性。手术组患者均使用带线锚钉修复外侧副韧带复合体。术后随访评估患者的疼痛、活动范围及稳定性,采用视觉模拟评分和Mayo肘关节功能评分进行评价和评级。 结果20例患者经过6~24个月的随访,手术组和对照组治疗后视觉模拟评分分别为（0.27±0.19）分和（1.56±0.41）分,Mayo肘关节功能评分分别为（91.27±2.28）分和（77.78±4.96）分,手术组明显优于对照组,差异有统计学意义。 结论急性肘关节后外侧旋转不稳定的正确诊断对于治疗方案的选取非常重要。肘关节外侧副韧带复合体修复术可以很好地恢复肘关节的稳定性和功能。