A Clinical Comparison of Triceps-Sparing and Triceps-Detaching Approaches for Revision Total Elbow Arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Triceps-sparing (TS) approaches have been reported to provide improved triceps strength, better patient outcomes, and a lower incidence of complications in primary total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). It remains unclear whether the advantages of this approach are similar in the revision setting, especially in cases with prior triceps detachment. The purpose of this study was to compare triceps strength and clinical outcomes between TS and triceps-detaching (TD) approaches in revision TEA. METHODS: All revision TEAs performed over a 17-year period with a minimum 1-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Elbows with preoperative triceps insufficiency or subsequent component removal for infection were excluded. Patients were grouped according to the surgical approach performed at the last revision TEA. Outcome measures included triceps strength, range of motion, visual analog scale (VAS), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores. RESULTS: Ten TS and 6 TD elbows were evaluated. Four elbows within the TS group had documented TD surgery prior to revision. Median follow-up was longer in the TD group (137 ± 75 months vs 53 ± 20 months). Functional strength and DASH scores were significantly better in the TS group. Arc of motion, VAS, and MEPS were similar between the TS and the TD groups. CONCLUSIONS: The TS approach preserves greater postoperative functional triceps strength after revision TEA, regardless of the type of approach used previously. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic V.

Elbow hemiarthroplasty using a "triceps-on" approach for the management of acute distal humeral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow arthroplasty is an established option for the primary treatment of acute distal humeral fractures, but there are sparse data regarding elbow hemiarthroplasty (EHA) as an alternative. We present the outcome of EHA performed with a modular anatomic prosthesis and a "triceps-on" surgical technique. METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients underwent EHA for an acute fracture. Two patients died, leaving a study group of 16 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical evaluation included range of motion; Mayo Elbow Performance Score; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; and Oxford Elbow Score. Radiographic assessment looked at alignment, evidence of loosening, ulnar and radial head wear, heterotopic ossification, and whether healing of the condyles had occurred. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 35 months (24-79 months). The mean scores were as follows: Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 89.6; shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score, 11.2; and Oxford Elbow Score, 43.7. The mean flexion and pronation-supination arcs were 116° and 172° respectively. Radial head wear was absent in 13 patients and mild in 3. Ulnar wear was absent in 6 patients, mild in 8, and moderate in 2. Wear was not associated with greater pain or inferior functional scores. There was no sign of aseptic loosening, and complete condylar bone union occurred in 15 elbows. There was 1 complication, a transient ulnar nerve neurapraxia that resolved without intervention. CONCLUSION: EHA with a modular anatomic implant using a triceps-on approach is a reliable technique for the management of acute unreconstructible distal humeral fractures in older patients.

Total elbow arthroplasty: outcomes after triceps-detaching and triceps-sparing approaches.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is associated with high complication rates compared with other large-joint arthroplasties. The frequency and type of complication may differ, depending on the surgical approach. A comparison of outcomes with triceps-off and triceps-on approaches was investigated. METHODS: Seventy-three patients underwent 83 primary TEAs between 2003 and 2012. Forty-six elbows had a triceps-off approach, and 37 had a triceps-on approach. Results were reviewed at a mean of 4.2 years. Cementing technique was graded according to Morrey's criteria, and clinical outcomes were assessed by means of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the triceps-off and triceps-on groups with regard to the patient's age, gender, preoperative Mayo Elbow Performance Score or range of motion, or previous surgery on the affected elbow. Among patients who underwent a TEA for an inflammatory arthropathy, there was a significant difference in outcome between groups with regard to final flexion, extension, arc of motion, and pronation. Cementing technique in the triceps-off group was adequate in 70%. In the triceps-on group, cementing technique was adequate in 92%. The complication rate in the triceps-off group was 32.6% and included 7 triceps ruptures. Three patients who had attempted repairs of the triceps rupture developed deep infections requiring multiple further surgeries. The complication rate in the triceps-on group was 8.1%. CONCLUSION: A triceps-on approach in TEA results in consistently good clinical outcomes with no risk of triceps rupture, and the approach does not compromise the cement mantle. We believe that this approach will reduce complication rates in TEA.

Lateral para-olecranon approach: surgical guide and anatomical considerations to the anconeus branch: is there a nerve-free zone?

PURPOSE: In the last decades, total elbow arthroplasty, elbow osteosynthesis and revision surgery have been more popularized. The study aimed to assess the course of the anconeus branch of the radial nerve in relation to two variations of the lateral para-olecranon approach, considering iatrogenic nerve injuries. METHODS: The study consisted of 120 upper extremities from 60 Thiel-embalmed human specimens. Two randomized versions of the lateral para-olecranon approach (centrally orientated: P1 and laterally orientated: P2) were performed. The olecranon and the intersection points to the anconeus branch of the radial nerve were determined as anatomical landmarks. The measurements were assessed by two independent observers. Differences were analyzed using the Student's t test; associations were computed with the Pearson correlation (r). An alpha of 0.05 (p) and a confidence interval of 95% were set. RESULTS: The intersection points averaged 12.3 cm (SD 1.8, range 8.2-16.8) for P1 versus 5.5 cm (SD 1.4, range 3.0-9.2) for P2 (p ≤ 0.001). Statistically significantly higher values for male and longer humeral specimens were revealed (all values: p < 0.05). Comparison of left and right sides yielded no difference. Excellent inter-rater agreements were found (ICC = 0.902, range 0.860-0.921). A correlation was evaluated between the humeral length and the distances in both approaches (P1: r = 0.550, p < 0.001, P2: r = 0.669, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The data presented here allow preservation of the anconeus branch. The P1 forms a potential advantage by owing a broader safe zone. Using the centrally orientated approach seems to provide adequate nerve protection during surgery for one of the motor branches for extension of the elbow joint and might result in improved postoperative benefits.

Comprehensive review of surgical approaches to the elbow.

The choice of the most suitable surgical approach to the elbow forms the foundation of any successful elbow surgery. The surgical approach is based on the injury or pathology to be addressed and therefore specific anatomical details need to be considered. The surgeon must be comfortable with the bony, ligamentous and neurovascular anatomy of the elbow to consider and execute the best approach for each problem. This is an imperative to avoid iatrogenic injury. This article provides a detailed analysis, valuable technical tips, advantages and disadvantages of the most common approaches to the elbow. The lateral approaches include the Kocher, Kaplan and Extensor Digitorum Communis (EDC) Split approaches, the medial approaches include the Hotchkiss, Flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) splitting approach, the Taylor and Scham approach. The anterior approach includes the anterior neurovascular interval approach and the posterior approaches include the Olecranon osteotomy, triceps sparing, triceps reflecting approach and finally the Boyd interval approach. The text and illustrations will provide a structured overview for the practicing surgeon.

Does the triceps-on approach affect alignment in total elbow arthroplasty? A cadaveric study.

BACKGROUND: The triceps-on approach for total elbow arthroplasty has gained popularity due to the theoretical benefit of preserving the extensor mechanism. However, there is concern that the exposure may be reduced in comparison to a triceps-off approach and may affect the implant alignment achieved. METHOD: Total elbow arthroplasties were implanted in 18 randomised, paired cadaveric elbows using the triceps-on or triceps-off approach. The bones were dissected out and the position of the implants measured relative to anatomical landmarks. The flexion/extension and varus/valgus angles, and the distance of centre of rotation from the anatomic centre of rotation in the sagittal plane for both components were obtained as well as the humeral component rotation relative to the transepicondylar axis. RESULTS: All humeral components were positioned in external rotation and all ulna components were placed in flexion. Seven components were positioned greater than 5° away from the ideal in one measurement, with no significant difference between the two approach groups. DISCUSSION: This unique study showed no significant difference in the alignment of the implants between the two approaches. These results support the theory that the triceps-on approach does not result in larger alignment errors in component positioning when performing total elbow arthroplasty.

Triceps on, alignment off? A comparison of total elbow arthroplasty component positioning with a triceps-on and a triceps-off approach.

Introduction This retrospective review investigates whether the triceps-on approach obtains alignment of total elbow arthroplasty implants equivalent to a triceps-off approach. Methods The last 30 consecutive total elbow arthroplasties performed by the senior author were reviewed to identify the approach used and pathology treated. Initially, a triceps split and reflection approach was used, then a triceps-preserving approach. Two blinded reviewers measured the component alignment in standardised radiographs. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to investigate inter/intra-observer and error. The two groups were compared using an unpaired Student t-test. Results There were 13 elbows in the triceps-off group and 17 in the triceps-on group. Pearson's coefficient was 0.75 for interobserver error, 0.89 for intra-observer error. There was no statistical difference between the achieved alignment. All ulna components were flexed with a mean angle deviation of 4.5 degrees in the triceps-off group and 5.7 degrees in the triceps on. Two (15%) ulna components in the triceps-off group were placed in over 5 degrees of flexion, compared with seven (44%) in the triceps-on group. Conclusion These results demonstrate no statistical difference in the achieved alignment between the two groups. Surgeons should beware of the tendency to place the ulna component in a flexed position, especially in the triceps-on approach.