A modified-delphi study establishing consensus in the therapeutic management of posttrauamtic elbow stiffness.

STUDY DESIGN: Web-based modified Delphi study. BACKGROUND: Therapy is widely considered the first choice of treatment for posttraumatic stiffness of the elbow since loss of motion is a common sequela following traumatic elbow injuries. There is high variability in practice patterns for the management of the posttraumtic elbow. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to identify the current therapeutic management of posttraumatic elbow stiffness using expert consensus. METHODS: This study surveyed experts using a web-based 3 round modified Delphi method. Quantitative data and comments were collected during the first round. Questions with Likert scaling were used to identify consensus (defined as 75% agreement) with each statement and comment boxes enabled open-ended responses to gather expert opinion. Lack of consensus and data from comments guided the second-round of the survey. This process was repeated after Round 2 to develop the Round 3 survey. Consensus was achieved at Round 3 and no further rounds were needed. RESULTS: Round 1 included 34 experts (response rate 20%), not all experts were able to continue through all rounds. Round 2 included 18 experts and Round 3 included 15 experts. Survey items were categorized as follows: examination procedures, therapeutic interventions, orthotic intervention considerations, contributing patient factors, and clinical decisions and rehabilitation challenges. Twenty-five percent of items achieved consensus after Round 1, 30% after Round 2 and 52% after Round 3. Although most participants agreed that orthotic intervention is critical to patient outcomes, there were conflicting thoughts about the orthotic design and wearing schedule. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this web-based modified Delphi study helped to establish a current body of knowledge using expert consensus to guide practice and identify specific questions that can be studied in future clinical studies on posttraumatic elbow stiffness.

Pediatric elbow arthroscopy: clinical outcomes and complications after long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Elbow arthroscopy is becoming increasingly important for the treatment of a wide range of acute and chronic elbow pathologies. Even if elbow arthroscopy is technically demanding, in the pediatric population this minimally invasive technique is preferred by many surgeons for the treatment of pathologies such as osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), posttraumatic stiffness (PTS), or elbow posterior impingement (PI). The aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes and safety of elbow arthroscopy in the pediatric and adolescent population after long-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 26 patients younger than 18 years old undergoing elbow arthroscopy were evaluated. All surgeries were performed by a single senior surgeon. Patients were divided into three subgroups based on preoperative diagnosis: OCD, PTS, and PI. After at least 60 months follow-up, several outcome measures, including range of motion (ROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and visual analog scale (VAS) were evaluated in relation to preoperative values. The level of patient satisfaction on a five-level Likert scale, any limitation or change in sport activity, and the onset of any possible complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: In the study population, we found an improvement in ROM (flexion of 14.4 ± 13.6°, extension of 19.5 ± 13.9°, pronation of 5.8 ± 5.7°, and supination of 8.5 ± 11.6°) and in validated outcome measures (MEPS of 21.0 ± 13.5 points and VAS of 3.8 ± 2.2 points). The satisfaction rate was 4.5, with no dissatisfaction. Eighty-seven percent of patients fully recovered their performance levels, 9% changed sport, and 4% were unable to return to sport. We identified one major and one minor complication, with an overall complication rate of 7.7%. No neurovascular injuries were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Elbow arthroscopy in a pediatric population can be considered an effective and safe procedure for selected pathologies when performed by an experienced surgeon. At long-term follow-up, we reported excellent clinical outcomes (both objective and subjective), with a relatively low complication rate without permanent injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-case series.