Search

Objective Complications related to triceps after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) have become a major surgical concern. The triceps‐preserving approach has the advantage of not disturbing the insertion of triceps but is disadvantaged by the reduced exposure of the elbow joint. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of TEA with a triceps‐preserving approach and to compare the outcomes of TEA to treat arthropathy with that of TEA to treat acute distal humerus fracture. Methods From January 2010 to December 2018, 23 patients undergoing primary TEAs were retrospectively reviewed with a mean follow‐up time of 92.6 months (range, 52–136 months). Each TEA was performed using the triceps‐preserving approach with a semi‐constrained Coonrad–Morrey prosthesis. Patient demographics, range of motion (ROM), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and triceps strength (Medical Research Council [MRC] scale) were compared before and after surgery. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, radiographic outcome, and complications were evaluated at follow‐up. Results In total, seven males and 16 females were included in this study, with a mean age of 66.1 years (range:46–85 years). By the last follow‐up, pain had been significantly relieved in all patients. The average MEPS in the arthropathy group and fracture group were 90.8 ± 10.3 points (range: 68–98 points) and 91.7 ± 0.4 (range: 76–100 points), respectively. The average DASH of the arthropathy group and fracture group was 37.3 ± 18.8 points (range: 18–52 points) and 38.4 ± 20.1 (range: 16–60 points). At the last follow‐up after surgery, the mean flexion arcs in the arthropathy group and fracture group were 100.4° ± 24.1° and 97.8° ± 28.1°, respectively. The mean pro‐supination arcs in the arthropathy group and fracture group were 142.4° ± 15.2° and 139.2° ± 17.5°, respectively. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups (P ≥ 0.05). Triceps strength was normal (MRC grade V) in 15 elbows and good in eight elbows. None of the cases experienced weakness of the triceps strength, infection, periprosthetic fractures, or prosthesis breakage. Conclusions The clinical and radiographical outcomes of TEA with the triceps‐preserving approach were satisfactory in patients with distal humerus fracture, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Objective Based on the morphological characteristics of glenoid and greater tuberosity (GT) fractures and the relationship between them, we explored the injury mechanism of acute anterior shoulder dislocation associated with glenoid and GT fractures. Methods From December 2013 to December 2019, we retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who were diagnosed with acute anterior shoulder dislocation associated with glenoid and GT fractures in our hospital. According to the fracture site, a glenoid fracture group and a greater tuberosity fracture (GT) group were established, and the morphological characteristics of both glenoid and GT fractures were measured and statistically analyzed. Results A total of 41 patients (43 shoulders) met the inclusion criteria (39 unilateral shoulders and 2 bilateral shoulders). The mean age was 50.21 years (range, 22–71 years). A total of 27 shoulder injuries (62.8%) were split GT fractures and 33 shoulder injuries (76.7%) were combined with rotator cuff tears. The mean size of glenoid fragments was 30.16% and the mean displacement was 8.85 mm. The mean size of GT fragments was 28.43 mm. The mean superoinferior and anteroposterior displacements of the GT fragment were 6.77 mm and 4.96 mm, respectively. There was a negative correlation between the size of glenoid and GT fracture fragments (r = −0.64, P < 0.05). The glenoid fragments in the Ideberg type Ia glenoid fracture group were smaller than those in the Ideberg type II glenoid fracture group (28.41% and 40.95%, respectively), while the size of GT fragments in the type Ia group were larger than those in the type II group (29.77 mm and 20.21 mm, respectively) (P < 0.05). The GT fragments in the split GT fracture group were larger than those in the avulsion or depression GT fracture group (33.69 mm, 19.07 mm and 21.12 mm, respectively), while the size of glenoid fragments in the split GT fracture group were smaller than those in the avulsion or depression GT fracture group (23.57%, 41.37%, and 43.42%, respectively) (P

Objective To report the clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopically assisted surgery for combination of glenoid and greater tuberosity fractures after traumatic shoulder dislocation. Methods From December 2013 to December 2018, patients with concomitant fracture of the greater tuberosity and glenoid who underwent arthroscopically assisted surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Fifteen patients were included. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans with 3D reconstruction were performed to evaluate the fracture configuration and associated fractures. All patients underwent arthroscopically assisted surgery under general anesthesia with brachial plexus anesthesia in the lateral position. Under the arthroscopic approach, a comprehensive inspection of the joints was firstly conducted to examine the injury of bones and other tissues. With arthroscopy support, closed reduction and internal fixation of both fractures were performed with suture anchors, with or without additional cannulated screws. At the same time, other injuries were also repaired under the arthroscope. Patients were followed up (6 weeks，8 weeks，3 months，6 months，1 year after surgery) regularly for at least 1 year. At the follow‐up, clinical outcomes (Constant score, ASES score, range of motion, and VAS score) and radiological outcomes were analyzed. Results Of the 15 patients, there are seven cases of men, eight cases of women; aged 22–66 years, with an average age of 48 years; left shoulder for five cases, 10 cases of the right shoulder. The injury mechanisms were: a simple fall (n = 9), an epileptic seizure (n = 1), a high fall injury (n = 2), and a traffic accident (n = 3). Of the 15 cases of glenoid fracture, 11 cases were type Ia and four cases were type II according to the Ideberg Classification System. The mean size of the glenoid fracture fragment was 28.4% (range, 8.7%–47.2%). According to the Mutch classification system, the fractures of the greater tuberosity were divided into: five cases of avulsion, one case of compression, and nine cases of split. Average time of follow‐up was 38.2 months (range, 12–70 months), and one case was lost to follow‐up. With fractures healing well, almost all patients had a good joint function. At the final follow‐up, mean anterior flexion was 157°; mean external rotation was 40°; mean internal rotation was T11 level; the mean Constant–Murley score was 94.6 points (range, 70–100 points); the mean ASES score was 94.6 points (range, 79–100 points); and the mean VAS score was 0.4 points (range, 0–2 points). No recurrent instability or re‐dislocation occurred. No patient had revision surgery. Conclusion Arthroscopic management of glenoid and greater tuberosity bipolar fractures was useful and effective with minimal injury, and it achieved satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes at a mean follow‐up time of more than 3 years.