Triceps Insufficiency After Total Elbow Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of triceps insufficiency after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) varies in the literature, and a consensus on treatment strategy is lacking. We review the incidence, the risk factors, the clinical presentation, and the diagnosis and treatment of triceps insufficiency after TEA. Based on this information, we have formulated recommendations for clinical practice. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature from January 2003 to April 2020 to identify studies that investigated triceps function following TEA by searching the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies (1) reported on triceps function following primary or revision TEA for every indication, regardless of technique (e.g., bone grafts), (2) included ≥6 adult patients, (3) had the full-text article available, and (4) had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. RESULTS: Eighty studies with a total of 4,825 TEAs were included. The quality was low in 15 studies, moderate in 64 studies, and high in 1 study. The mean incidence of triceps insufficiency was 4.5%. The rates were highest in patients after revision TEA (22%), in those with posttraumatic arthritis as an indication for surgery (10.2%), and after a triceps-reflecting approach (4.9%). Most studies used the Medical Research Council scale to score triceps function, although cutoff points and the definition of triceps insufficiency differed among studies. Surgical treatment showed favorable results with anconeus tendon transfer and Achilles allograft repair when compared with direct repair. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of triceps insufficiency varies greatly, probably due to a lack of consensus on the definition of the term. Therefore, we recommend the guidelines for clinical practice that are presented in this article. These guidelines assist clinicians in providing the best possible treatment strategy for their patients and help researchers optimize their future study designs in order to compare outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Total Elbow Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Most total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) designs aim to replicate anatomy and provide stability in the treatment of the degenerative elbow joint. Given the promising results that have been reported following the use of TEA for the treatment of complex fractures, the indications for this procedure are growing. The objective of the present study was to review the most recent literature on the results of the most commonly performed TEAs. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted. All relevant studies were reviewed according to a set of predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After the initial assessment, 2 authors extracted data from the included articles. Groups were created on the basis of the design of TEA implant, the type of implant (linked or unlinked), and the indication for treatment. Outcome parameters were survival rate, pain, range of motion, complications, and specific elbow outcome scores. RESULTS: Seventy-three articles involving a total of 9,379 TEAs were included. The level of evidence was primarily Level IV. Nineteen specific designs of TEA implants were described, including the Souter-Strathclyde (n = 2,387), Coonrad-Morrey (n = 1,586), Kudo (n = 560), and GSB III (n = 498). The most common indication for TEA was rheumatoid arthritis (70%). The weighted mean survival rate for the linked and unlinked prostheses was 85.5% at 7.8 years and 74% at 12.3 years, respectively. For the Coonrad-Morrey, Souter-Strathclyde, and GSB III, the weighted mean survival rate was 87.2% at 7.2 years, 70.6% at 14.2 years, and 81.7% at 9.5 years, respectively. The range of motion after TEA was good overall, with a mean flexion angle of 129° and a mean extension lag angle of 30°. The complication rates ranged from 11% to 38%, with clinical loosening being the most frequently reported complication (7%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of TEA are respectable overall. It appears that there are small differences between designs. However, despite the fairly good functional results and elbow scores, the survival and complication rates are still not as favorable as those following arthroplasties in other joints. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.