Search

Purpose: Determination of the appropriate treatment of unstable simple elbow dislocations is difficult and a topic of ongoing discussion. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcome and complications after surgery and conservative treatment, with special focus on post-traumatic joint laxity., Methods: In this retrospective study, 118 consecutive patients with simple elbow dislocations underwent stability testing by fluoroscopy after joint reduction and were assigned to groups 1 (slight), 2 (moderate) or 3 (gross) depending on post-traumatic joint laxity. All patients of group 1 underwent conservative treatment, and of group 3 primary ligament repair. In patients with moderate elbow laxity, the treatment was decided individually. All patients underwent a similar functional rehabilitation programme during treatment. Clinical outcome was determined after an average of 3.4 ± 1.5 years using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and treatment-associated complications and revisions were recorded., Results: Forty-nine patients (41.5 %) were assigned to group 1, 41 patients (34.7 %) to group 2 and 28 patients (23.7 %) to group 3. In group 2, 22 patients underwent ligament repair, while 19 patients were treated conservatively. On average, an excellent MEPS was achieved in group 1 after conservative treatment (MEPS 95.8 ± 9.0), similar to results after ligament repair of grossly unstable elbows in group 3 (91.6 ± 11.7). Interestingly, in group 2 conservative treatment was associated with a slightly lower MEPS (90.0 vs. 95.7), and significantly fewer patients achieved an excellent MEPS (81.8 vs. 52.6 %, p = 0.045). Similarly, conservative treatment in group 2 was associated with a fivefold to sixfold risk of complications (p = 0.032) and revision surgery (p = 0.023)., Conclusions: This study supports the notion that patients with slight elbow laxity can be treated non-operatively, while primary surgical treatment should be performed in patients with moderate and gross laxity to avoid post-traumatic sequelae and decrease revision rates., Level of Evidence: Retrospective Cohort Study, Level III.

Purpose: Elbow dislocations with complex elbow instability (CEI) and unstable radial head fractures require reconstruction by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) if possible or alternatively by a radial head prosthesis. The aim of this study was to determine the differential outcome of both strategies and to investigate the contribution of prosthesis-related radiographic factors such as oversizing on clinical outcome., Methods: A total of 53 patients underwent ligament and coronoid refixation, and radial head reconstruction by ORIF (n = 18; group 1) or by monopolar modular prosthesis (n = 35; group 2). Patients were followed by the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and a radiological score including prosthesis oversizing, joint subluxation, ossifications, capitellar erosions, implant loosening and ulno-humeral osteoarthritis. To investigate the effect of oversizing, group 2 was subdivided by prosthesis overlenghtening ≥ 2 mm., Results: A total of 42 patients (79.2%) could be followed for 3.0 ± 1.3 years with an average MEPS of 76.8 ± 17.2. Patients with ORIF had slightly better MEPS (82.1 ± 9.9) as compared with group 2 (74.7 ± 19.1) though three ORIF patients required an early conversion to prosthesis. In group 2, oversizing occurred frequently and 50% showed an overlenghtening ≥ 2 mm. Oversizing significantly decreased MEPS (63.2 ± 21.3 vs 84.7 ± 9.0; p = 0.001) and elbow range of motion and increased the occurrence of other radiological abnormalities and the risk for surgical revisions. The radiological score and prosthesis overlenghtening but not prosthesis diameter showed an inverse correlation with MEPS., Conclusions: In CEI a radial head reconstruction with a prosthesis demonstrates similarly good clinical results as compared to ORIF in anatomically sized prosthesis, but prosthesis oversizing could induce other radiographic abnormalities with then deteriorated outcome.