$Elbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique$
Código QR

Elbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to report results of elbow hemiarthroplasty for comminuted, intra-articular distal humerus fractures in low-demand elderly female patients. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of eight patients who underwent elbow hemiarthroplasty for comminuted, intra...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	J. Ryan Taylor, MD, MPH, Kelsey E. Shea, BA, Charles F. Clark, MD, James D. Kelly, II, MD, Mark A. Schrumpf, MD
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Elsevier 2021
Materias:	Elbow arthroplasty hemiarthroplasty fracture distal humerus intra-articular Surgery RD1-811
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/692778cef73e4b779fdac56031e7298d
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:692778cef73e4b779fdac56031e7298d
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:692778cef73e4b779fdac56031e7298d2021-11-22T04:32:25ZElbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique2666-639110.1016/j.xrrt.2021.08.002https://doaj.org/article/692778cef73e4b779fdac56031e7298d2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666639121000730https://doaj.org/toc/2666-6391Purpose: The purpose of this study was to report results of elbow hemiarthroplasty for comminuted, intra-articular distal humerus fractures in low-demand elderly female patients. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of eight patients who underwent elbow hemiarthroplasty for comminuted, intra-articular distal humerus fractures between 2015 and 2019. Patients were considered for the procedure if the humeral fractures were deemed nonreconstructable by open reduction internal fixation. Patients were excluded if the extensor mechanism was not intact, evidence of significant ulnohumeral osteoarthritis, or a fracture to the proximal radius or ulna. A “triceps-on” approach was used in all cases. Appropriate sizing of the spool and length of the implant were determined by intraoperative fluoroscopy. Both ulnar collateral ligament and the lateral ulnar collateral ligaments were repaired through the central spool after final placement of the implant. Postoperative radiographs, clinical data, and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score were used to assess elbow pain and function. Results: Seven patients were included in final analysis. One patient was excluded from final analysis after sustaining a ground-level elbow dislocation at 13 weeks postoperatively, which subsequently revised to total elbow arthroplasty. The average age at the final follow-up was 72.1 years and duration of follow-up was 29.9 months (range 11.4-58.8 months). Average elbow range of motion was 21° ± 15° extension, 135° ± 9° flexion, 87° ± 5° pronation and 84° ± 8° supination. The average Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 88.3 (range 85-95; or “good” to “excellent”) at the final follow-up. Postoperative ulnar neuropathy was reported by one patient at the first postoperative visit. This was followed up clinically and evaluation at 24 months revealed mild residual sensory deficits and adequate strength and motor function. Conclusion: Elbow hemiarthroplasty using the humeral component of the total elbow arthroplasty is an option for treatment of isolated, comminuted distal humerus fractures in select patient populations. The ideal candidates are elderly, low-demand, and able to adhere to postoperative activity and weight-bearing restrictions. Overall patient satisfaction with off-label use of humeral component of commercially available total elbow implants in the United States is promising, yet development of a more anatomic spool is warranted to further optimize outcomes intraoperatively. Some advantages of elbow hemiarthroplasty are a less-demanding operation and avoids complications associated with linked design including polyethylene wear, periprosthetic fracture, or implant loosening. Limitations of this study include small sample size and retrospective nature of the study.J. Ryan Taylor, MD, MPHKelsey E. Shea, BACharles F. Clark, MDJames D. Kelly, II, MDMark A. Schrumpf, MDElsevierarticleElbowarthroplastyhemiarthroplastyfracturedistal humerusintra-articularSurgeryRD1-811ENJSES Reviews, Reports, and Techniques, Vol 1, Iss 4, Pp 408-413 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Elbow arthroplasty hemiarthroplasty fracture distal humerus intra-articular Surgery RD1-811
spellingShingle	Elbow arthroplasty hemiarthroplasty fracture distal humerus intra-articular Surgery RD1-811 J. Ryan Taylor, MD, MPH Kelsey E. Shea, BA Charles F. Clark, MD James D. Kelly, II, MD Mark A. Schrumpf, MD Elbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique
description	Purpose: The purpose of this study was to report results of elbow hemiarthroplasty for comminuted, intra-articular distal humerus fractures in low-demand elderly female patients. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of eight patients who underwent elbow hemiarthroplasty for comminuted, intra-articular distal humerus fractures between 2015 and 2019. Patients were considered for the procedure if the humeral fractures were deemed nonreconstructable by open reduction internal fixation. Patients were excluded if the extensor mechanism was not intact, evidence of significant ulnohumeral osteoarthritis, or a fracture to the proximal radius or ulna. A “triceps-on” approach was used in all cases. Appropriate sizing of the spool and length of the implant were determined by intraoperative fluoroscopy. Both ulnar collateral ligament and the lateral ulnar collateral ligaments were repaired through the central spool after final placement of the implant. Postoperative radiographs, clinical data, and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score were used to assess elbow pain and function. Results: Seven patients were included in final analysis. One patient was excluded from final analysis after sustaining a ground-level elbow dislocation at 13 weeks postoperatively, which subsequently revised to total elbow arthroplasty. The average age at the final follow-up was 72.1 years and duration of follow-up was 29.9 months (range 11.4-58.8 months). Average elbow range of motion was 21° ± 15° extension, 135° ± 9° flexion, 87° ± 5° pronation and 84° ± 8° supination. The average Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 88.3 (range 85-95; or “good” to “excellent”) at the final follow-up. Postoperative ulnar neuropathy was reported by one patient at the first postoperative visit. This was followed up clinically and evaluation at 24 months revealed mild residual sensory deficits and adequate strength and motor function. Conclusion: Elbow hemiarthroplasty using the humeral component of the total elbow arthroplasty is an option for treatment of isolated, comminuted distal humerus fractures in select patient populations. The ideal candidates are elderly, low-demand, and able to adhere to postoperative activity and weight-bearing restrictions. Overall patient satisfaction with off-label use of humeral component of commercially available total elbow implants in the United States is promising, yet development of a more anatomic spool is warranted to further optimize outcomes intraoperatively. Some advantages of elbow hemiarthroplasty are a less-demanding operation and avoids complications associated with linked design including polyethylene wear, periprosthetic fracture, or implant loosening. Limitations of this study include small sample size and retrospective nature of the study.
format	article
author	J. Ryan Taylor, MD, MPH Kelsey E. Shea, BA Charles F. Clark, MD James D. Kelly, II, MD Mark A. Schrumpf, MD
author_facet	J. Ryan Taylor, MD, MPH Kelsey E. Shea, BA Charles F. Clark, MD James D. Kelly, II, MD Mark A. Schrumpf, MD
author_sort	J. Ryan Taylor, MD, MPH
title	Elbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique
title_short	Elbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique
title_full	Elbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique
title_fullStr	Elbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique
title_full_unstemmed	Elbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique
title_sort	elbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/692778cef73e4b779fdac56031e7298d
work_keys_str_mv	AT jryantaylormdmph elbowhemiarthroplastyforintraarticulardistalhumerusfracturesresultsandtechnique AT kelseyesheaba elbowhemiarthroplastyforintraarticulardistalhumerusfracturesresultsandtechnique AT charlesfclarkmd elbowhemiarthroplastyforintraarticulardistalhumerusfracturesresultsandtechnique AT jamesdkellyiimd elbowhemiarthroplastyforintraarticulardistalhumerusfracturesresultsandtechnique AT markaschrumpfmd elbowhemiarthroplastyforintraarticulardistalhumerusfracturesresultsandtechnique
_version_	1718418165199798272

Elbow hemiarthroplasty for intra-articular distal humerus fractures: results and technique

Ejemplares similares