Wide Range in Complication Rates Following Elbow Arthroscopy in Adult and Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of complications associated with elbow arthroscopy in adults and children. METHODS: A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting complications or reoperations after elbow arthroscopy with at least 5 patients were included. Based on the Nelson classification, the severity of complications was categorized as minor or major. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized trials were assessed using the Methodological Items for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. RESULT: A total of 114 articles were included with 18,892 arthroscopies (16,815 patients). A low risk of bias was seen for the randomized studies and a fair quality for the nonrandomized studies. Complication rates ranged from 0% to 71% (median 3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8%-3.3%), and reoperation rates from 0% to 59% (median 2%; 95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%). A total of 906 complications were observed, with transient nerve palsies (31%) as the most frequent complication. According to Nelson classification, 735 (81%) complications were minor and 171 (19%) major. Forty-nine studies reported complications in adults and 10 studies in children, showing a complication rate ranging from 0% to 27% (median 0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.4%) and 0% to 57% (median 1%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.5%), respectively. A total of 125 complications were observed in adults, with transient nerve palsies (23%) as the most frequent complication, and 33 in children, with loose bodies after surgery (45%) as the most frequent complication. CONCLUSIONS: Predominantly low-level evidence studies demonstrate varying complication rates (median 3%, range 0%-71%) and reoperation rates (median 2%, range 0%-59%) after elbow arthroscopy. Higher complication rates are observed after more complex surgery. The incidence and type of complications can aid surgeons in patient counseling and refining surgical techniques to further reduce the complication rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

Update in diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of osteochondritis dissecans of the capitellum.

Osteochondritis dissecans of the capitellum is debilitating and is a potentially sports career-ending injury in a young and athletic population. Osteochondritis dissecans typically occurs in patients between the ages of 10 and 24 years, and boys are more commonly affected than girls. Conventional radiographs have low diagnostic accuracy, and magnetic resonance imaging (with or without contrast) or computed tomography may aid in accurate diagnosis. The primary indication for non-operative treatment is the presence of an intact cartilage cap on magnetic resonance imaging, indicating a "stable lesion." However, if operative treatment is necessary, various surgical procedures are available when operative treatment for an osteochondritis dissecans of the capitellum is considered, including open or arthroscopic removal of loose bodies, with or without microfracturing, fragment fixation, osteochondral autograft transplantation, and osteochondral allograft transplantation. The decision-making process for selecting the appropriate treatment considers factors such as the patient's characteristics, functional limitations, and lesion morphology.

Treatment Outcomes of Simple Elbow Dislocations: A Systematic Review of 1,081 Cases.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of simple elbow dislocations (SEDs) has become more functional last decade with a tendency to shorter immobilization of the elbow, whereas simultaneously, surgical stabilization has been promoted by some authors. The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and analyze the outcomes and complications of different treatment options for acute and persistent SEDs, including operative and nonoperative treatments with varying immobilization periods. METHODS: A literature search was performed based on the online medical databases MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. Articles presenting patients with a SED were eligible for inclusion. When an SED persists for >3 weeks, it is categorized as persistent. Various outcome measures were assessed, including the range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcome measures, and complication rates. To get insight into the severity of complications, all complications were categorized as minor or major. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was used to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized studies. The risk of bias in the randomized studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 37 articles were included with 1,081 dislocated elbows (1,078 patients). A fair quality of evidence was seen for the nonrandomized studies and a low risk of bias for the randomized study. Nonoperative treatment was administered to 710 elbows, with 244 elbows treated with early mobilization, 239 with 1- to 3-week immobilization, and 163 with ≥3-week immobilization. These groups showed a ROM flexion-extension arc (ROM F/E) of 137, 129, and 131°, respectively. Surgical treatment as open reduction and ligament repair or reconstruction was performed in 228 elbows and showed a ROM F/E of 128°. All persistent SEDs were treated surgically and showed a ROM F/E of 90°. CONCLUSION: The early mobilization treatment showed the most consistent satisfactory outcomes in the literature compared with the other treatment options. Nevertheless, there remains ambiguity regarding which patients would benefit more from surgery than nonoperative treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The management of elbow trauma from a historical perspective.

The origins of contemporary orthopedics can be traced all the way back to antiquity. Despite the absence of modern imaging techniques, a few bright minds were able to lay the groundwork for understanding these fractures. This historical review will cover the process behind the various treatments for elbow fractures, such as splinting and casting, mobilization, amputation, fracture fixation, arthroplasty, and arthroscopy.

Coronoid fractures and traumatic elbow instability.

The coronoid process is key to concentric elbow alignment. Malalignment can contribute to post-traumatic osteoarthritis. The aim of treatment is to keep the joint aligned while the collateral ligaments and fractures heal. The injury pattern is apparent in the shape and size of the coronoid fracture fragments: (1) coronoid tip fractures associated with terrible triad (TT) injuries; (2) anteromedial facet fractures with posteromedial varus rotational type injuries; and (3) large coronoid base fractures with anterior (trans-) or posterior olecranon fracture dislocations. Each injury pattern is associated with specific ligamentous injuries and fracture characteristics useful in planning treatment. The tip fractures associated with TT injuries are repaired with suture fixation or screw fixation in addition to repair or replacement of the radial head fracture and reattachment of the lateral collateral ligament origin. Anteromedial facet fractures are usually repaired with a medial buttress plate. If the elbow is concentrically located on computed tomography and the patient can avoid varus stress for a month, TT and anteromedial facet injuries can be treated nonoperatively. Base fractures are associated with olecranon fractures and can usually be fixed with screws through the posterior plate or with an additional medial plate. If the surgery makes elbow subluxation or dislocation unlikely, and the fracture fixation is secure, elbow motion and stretching can commence within a week when the patient is comfortable.

Recognition of the pattern of complex fractures of the elbow using 3D-printed models.

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 (acc2D/3D = 0.62 vs acc3Dprint= 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 (κ2D/3D = 0.41 (moderate) vs κ3Dprint = 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 (accjunior = 0.70 vs accsenior = 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 (κjunior = 0.39 (fair) vs κsenior = 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 (κjunior = 0.65 (substantial) vs κsenior = 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.

Arthroscopic and open debridement in primary elbow osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the elbow can cause disabling symptoms of pain, locking, stiffness, and a limitation in the range of motion. There is no consensus regarding the role of open and arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of symptomatic primary elbow OA. The aim of this study is to systematically review the outcome of surgical debridement. A preoperative/postoperative comparison will be made between the two surgical procedures.All studies reporting on debridement as treatment for primary elbow OA with a minimum of one-year follow-up were included. Outcome parameters were functional results, complications, and performance scores.Data were extracted from 21 articles. The arthroscopic group consisted of 286 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 40 ± 17 months (range, 16-75). The open group consisted of 300 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 55 ± 20 months (range, 19-85). Both procedures showed improvement in Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range of motion (ROM) flexion-extension, and ROM pronation-supination. Only in ROM flexion was a statistically significant difference in improvement seen between the groups in favour of the open group. The arthroscopic group showed improvement in pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Nothing could be stated about pain VAS scores in the open group due to a lack of data. In the arthroscopic group 18 complications (6%) were described, in the open group 29 complications (12%).Surgical debridement is an effective treatment for the disabling symptoms of primary elbow OA with an acceptable complication rate. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:874-882. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190095.