Search

Background: Complex elbow fracture dislocations, dislocation with fracture of one or several surrounding bony stabilizers, are difficult to manage and associated with poor outcomes. While many studies have explored treatment strategies but a lack of standardization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) makes cross-study comparison difficult. In this systematic review, we aim to describe what injury patterns, measured outcomes, and associated complications are reported in the complex elbow fracture dislocation literature to provide outcome reporting recommendations that will facilitate improved future cross-study comparison., Methods: A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles published between 2010 and 2022 reporting on adult patients who had a complex elbow fracture dislocation. Pathologic fractures were excluded. A bias assessment using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies criteria was conducted. For each article, patient demographics, injury pattern, outcome measures, and complications were recorded., Results: Ninety-one studies reporting on 3664 elbows (3654 patients) with an elbow fracture and dislocation (weighted mean age 44 years, follow-up of 30 months, 41% female) were evaluated. Of these, the injury pattern was described in 3378 elbows and included 2951 (87%) terrible triad injuries and 72 (2%) transolecranon fracture-dislocations. The three most commonly reported classification systems were: Mason classification for radial head fractures, Regan and Morrey coronoid classification for coronoid fractures, and O'Driscoll classification for coronoid fractures. Range of motion was reported in 87 (96%) studies with most reporting flexion (n = 70), extension (n = 62), pronation (n = 68), or supination (n = 67). Strength was reported in 11 (12%) studies. PROMs were reported in 83 (91%) studies with an average of 2.6 outcomes per study. There were 14 outcome scores including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (n = 69 [83%]), the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score (n = 28 [34%]), the visual analog scale for pain (n = 27 [33%]), QuickDASH score (n = 13 [15.7%]), and Oxford Elbow score (n = 5 [6.0%]). No significance was found between the number of PROMs used per article and the year of publication (P = .313), study type (P = .689), complex fracture pattern (P = .211), or number of elbows included (P = .152)., Conclusion: There is great heterogeneity in reported PROMs in the complex elbow fracture dislocation literature. Although there is no gold standard PROM for assessing complex elbow fracture dislocations, we recommend the use of at least the Mayo Elbow Performance Score and DASH outcomes measures as well as visual analog scale pain rating scale in future studies to facilitate cross-study comparisons., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patient satisfaction after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) partly relies on restoring functional internal rotation (IR). Although postoperative assessment of IR includes objective appraisal by the surgeon and subjective report from the patient, these evaluations may not vary together uniformly. We assessed the relationship between objective, surgeon-reported assessments of IR and subjective, patient-reported ability to perform IR-related activities of daily living (IRADLs)., Methods: Our institutional shoulder arthroplasty database was queried for patients undergoing primary RSA with a medialized-glenoid lateralized-humerus design between 2007-2019 and minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients who were wheelchair bound or had a preoperative diagnosis of infection, fracture, and tumor were excluded. Objective IR was measured to the highest vertebral level reached with the thumb. Subjective IR was reported based on patients' rating (normal, slightly difficult, very difficult, or unable) of their ability to perform 4 IRADLs (tuck in shirt with hand behind back, wash back or fasten bra, personal hygiene, and remove object from back pocket). Objective IR was assessed preoperatively and at latest follow-up and reported as median and interquartile ranges., Results: A total of 443 patients were included (52% female) at a mean follow-up of 4.4 ± 2.3 years. Objective IR improved pre- to postoperatively from L4-L5 (buttocks to L1-L3) to L1-L3 (L4-L5 to T8-T12) (P < .001). Preoperatively reported IRADLs of "very difficult" or "unable" significantly decreased postoperatively for all IRADLs (P ≤ .004) except those unable to perform personal hygiene (3.2% vs. 1.8%, P > .99). The proportions of patients who improved, maintained, and lost objective and subjective IR was similar between IRADLs; 14%-20% improved objective IR but lost or maintained subjective IR and 19%-21% lost or maintained the same objective IR but improved subjective IR depending on the specific IRADL assessed. When ability to perform IRADLs improved postoperatively, objective IR also increased (P < .001). In contrast, when subjective IRADLs worsened postoperatively, objective IR did not significantly worsen for 2 of 4 IRADLs assessed. When examining patients who reported no change in ability to perform IRADLs pre- vs. postoperatively, statistically significant increases in objective IR were found for 3 of 4 IRADLs assessed., Conclusions: Objective improvement in IR parallels improvements in subjective functional gains uniformly. However, in patients with worse or equivalent IR, the ability to perform IRADLs postoperatively does not uniformly correlate with objective IR. When attempting to elucidate how surgeons can ensure patients will have sufficient IR after RSA, future investigations may need to use patient-reported ability to perform IRADLs as the primary outcome measure rather than objective measures of IR., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)