Treatment of Unstable Elbow Injuries with a Hinged Elbow Fixator: Subjective and Objective Results

IntroductionInjuries around the elbow pose a challenging problem for orthopaedic surgeons. The complex bony architecture of the joint should be restored and the thin soft tissue envelope needs to be handled with meticulous care. Elbow instability is a complication seen after dislocations and fractur...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction 2022-05, Vol.17 (2), p.68-73
Hauptverfasser: Eygendaal, Denise, Mader, Konrad, Rollo, Giuseppe, Prkic, Ante, Meccariello, Luigi, Caiaffa, Vincenzo, Bisaccia, Michele, Pica, Giuseppe, Utrilla-Hernando, Sonia, Pica, Roberta
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:IntroductionInjuries around the elbow pose a challenging problem for orthopaedic surgeons. The complex bony architecture of the joint should be restored and the thin soft tissue envelope needs to be handled with meticulous care. Elbow instability is a complication seen after dislocations and fractures of the elbow and remains a treatment challenge. The purpose of this study was to provide subjective and objective results following the surgical treatment of unstable elbow dislocations with an external hinged fixation technique. MethodsForty-six consecutive patients with complex trauma of the elbow with instability after ligament reconstruction were enrolled between January 2017 and December 2019. The parameters used to quantify the subjective and objective functional results were the Mayo Elbow Score (MES, objective) and Oxford Elbow Score (OES, subjective), and clinical stability of the elbow joint. We also performed a radiological follow-up of the fractures. ResultsThe mean MES and OES scores were good at the 12-month follow-up. We had 38 patients with stable joints and 8 patients with minor instability. Using the stress test, we saw a significant difference in the affected joint under varus stress (6.7 ± 1.8 mm) compared to the healthy joint (5.8 ± 1.2 mm) laterally. Furthermore, medially the gap was significantly larger (5.8 ± 0.8 mm, treated elbow) than the contralateral gap under valgus stress (4.3 ± 0.8 mm) (p
ISSN:1828-8936
1828-8928
DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1553