Functional and subjective outcomes after surgical management of complex elbow dislocations: a retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Dislocations of the elbow are the second most frequent upper-body injury after shoulder dislocations, comprising 11-28% of all elbow injuries. Complex elbow dislocations pose challenging management due to the involvement of critical stabilizing structures. This study aimed to investigate functional and subjective outcomes (MEPS, DASH, Oxford score) in 44 patients with complex elbow dislocations who underwent surgery between 2018 and 2020, with subgroup analysis focusing on gender and age differences. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients treated at C.T.O. Hospital, Turin, for complex elbow dislocations between January 2018 and December 2020. Surgical approaches included radial head synthesis, coronoid fixation, ligamentous repair, and ulnar nerve management. Postoperatively, patients followed a standardized or individualized program. Data analysis involved t-tests to assess score differences between subgroups. RESULTS: Among the 44 analyzed patients, the mean age was 48 years, and the mean follow-up time was 29 months. Various types of complex dislocations were identified, with radial head and coronoid fractures classified accordingly. Surgical approaches included multiple methods of reduction and synthesis. While most patients adhered to postoperative programs, subsequent reoperations were conducted in 11% of cases. Scores did not significantly differ between genders, although a trend toward better DASH scores in males was observed. Younger patients showed better, though not statistically significant, outcomes in mobility and functional measures. CONCLUSION: This study underscores the importance of pre-operative assessment for positive surgical outcomes in complex elbow dislocations. Additionally, findings suggest that younger age may correlate with slightly better functional outcomes. Despite limitations such as retrospective design and sample size, the study enhances our understanding of complex dislocation outcomes and provides valuable insights for future interventions.

Unstable lesions of the forearm: Terminology, evaluative score and synoptic table.

The term "unstable lesions of the forearm" (ULF) was born to more easily describe how a partial or complete instability of the forearm unit might occur due to a traumatic loss of the transverse or longitudinal connection between the radius and ulna. For such an alteration to occur, at least two of the three main osteoligamentous locks (proximal, middle and distal) must be interrupted, often in association with a radial and/or ulnar fracture. Examining the historical patterns (Monteggia, Galeazzi, Essex-Lopresti and criss-cross lesions) and variants described in the literature, out of a total of 586 recorded interventions for forearm trauma, two elbow teams and one wrist team selected 75 cases of ULF. The aim was to describe the instability depending on its clinical and radiographic features, together with the anatomopathological evolution of the lesions based on the time of diagnosis and treatment. The clinical results, evaluated using a new score (FIPS) the Forearm Italian Performance, revealed a correlation between earlier diagnosis and treatment and a better score. The authors suggest a synoptic table that describes 1) the type of instability (proximal transverse, distal transverse, longitudinal and transverse, proximal and distal transverse), 2) classic patterns and variants with characteristic lesions and evolution over time (acute, chronic dynamic, chronic static) and 3) the three forearm constraints and segmental involvement of radius and/or ulna using an alphanumeric classification. Finally, some generic surgical suggestions are proposed.

Fracture-dislocations of the forearm joint: a systematic review of the literature and a comprehensive locker-based classification system.

BACKGROUND: Monteggia, Galeazzi, and Essex-Lopresti injuries are the most common types of fracture-dislocation of the forearm. Uncommon variants and rare traumatic patterns of forearm fracture-dislocations have sometimes been reported in literature. In this study we systematically review the literature to identify and classify all cases of forearm joint injury pattern according to the forearm joint and three-locker concepts. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed database was performed based on major pathological conditions involving fracture-dislocation of the forearm. Essex-Lopresti injury, Monteggia and Galeazzi fracture-dislocations, and proximal and/or distal radioulnar joint dislocations were sought. After article retrieval, the types of forearm lesion were classified using the following numerical algorithm: proximal forearm joint 1 [including proximal radioulnar joint (PRUJ) dislocation with or without radial head fractures], middle radioulnar joint 2, if concomitant radial fracture R, if concomitant interosseous membrane rupture I, if concomitant ulnar fracture U, and distal radioulnar joint 3 [including distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) dislocation with or without distal radial fractures]. RESULTS: Eighty hundred eighty-four articles were identified through PubMed, and after bibliographic research, duplication removal, and study screening, 462 articles were selected. According to exclusion criteria, 44 full-text articles describing atypical forearm fracture-dislocation were included. Three historical reviews were added separately to the process. We detected rare patterns of two-locker injuries, sometimes referred to using improper terms of variant or equivalent types of Monteggia and Galeazzi injuries. Furthermore, we identified a group of three-locker injuries, other than Essex-Lopresti, associated with ulnar and/or radial shaft fracture causing longitudinal instability. In addition to fracture-dislocations commonly referred to using historical eponyms (Monteggia, Galeazzi, and Essex-Lopresti), our classification system, to the best of the authors' knowledge, allowed us to include all types of dislocation and fracture-dislocation of the forearm joint reported in literature. According to this classification, and similarly to that of the elbow, we could distinguish between simple dislocations and complex dislocations (fracture-dislocations) of the forearm joint. CONCLUSIONS: All injury patterns may be previously identified using an alphanumeric code. This might avoid confusion in forearm fracture-dislocations nomenclature and help surgeons with detection of lesions, guiding surgical treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Resurfacing Capitate Pyrocarbon Implant versus Proximal Row Carpectomy Alone: A Comparative Study to Evaluate the Role of Capitate Prosthetic Resurfacing in Advanced Carpal Collapse.

BACKGROUND: The Resurfacing Capitate Pyrocarbon Implant associated with proximal row carpectomy has been used to treat symptomatic advanced carpal collapse, widening the indications of proximal row carpectomy to patients with capitate head arthritis. The authors retrospectively compared their case series of implant versus carpectomy alone, analyzing whether prosthetic implant outcomes could be similar to those of proximal row carpectomy even with a higher stage of osteoarthritis. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients who underwent surgery for wrist osteoarthritis (minimum follow-up, 2 years) were selected retrospectively. Twenty-five patients (scapholunate advanced collapse/scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse stage III to IV and Kienböck disease stage IV) underwent proximal row carpectomy plus Resurfacing Capitate Pyrocarbon Implant (group A); 32 patients (scapholunate advanced collapse/scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse stage I to II and Kienböck disease stage III) underwent carpectomy alone (group B). Mean follow-up was 33 months. Patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically. Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire scores were assessed. RESULTS: Group A showed consistent pain relief (visual analogue scale score of 2), while preserving wrist mobility (flexion, 27 degrees; extension, 33 degrees) and grip strength (54 percent compared with the contralateral side). Average Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire score was 20, and average Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score was 28. No statistically significant difference was observed between groups for all outcomes, except for better extension (p < 0.05) in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Even starting from a higher grade of osteoarthritis, Resurfacing Capitate Pyrocarbon Implant plus proximal row carpectomy showed satisfying results, compared with those obtained with just carpectomy. Data show that indications for proximal row carpectomy can be widened by using the implant, without worsening outcomes. The implant could be a useful alternative to more aggressive salvage procedures in case of capitate head and lunate fossa osteoarthritis involvement. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.