Lateral Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction for Posterolateral Rotatory Instability After Failed Common Extensor Origin Release: Outcomes at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.
arthroscopy
failure
lateral collateral ulnar ligament reconstruction
posterolateral rotatory instability
reoperation
tennis elbow
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
25
09
2021
accepted:
03
10
2021
entrez:
14
2
2022
pubmed:
15
2
2022
medline:
15
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis who have failed nonoperative treatment, open or percutaneous release of the common extensor origin (CEO) without subsequent reconstruction tends to result in good clinical outcomes. However, surgery can lead to iatrogenic injuries of the lateral collateral ligamentous complex, causing posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI). To determine the clinical outcomes of lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) reconstruction using a triceps tendon graft after failed open CEO surgery. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. A total of 103, patients underwent revision surgery at a single institution because of PLRI after failed open release of the CEO (Hohmann procedure) between January 2007 and October 2016. The primary surgery had been performed at other institutions in all cases. Of these patients, 72 were available for follow-up (49 by clinical examination, 23 by telephone interview). Standardized clinical examination; Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS); 11-item version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (QuickDASH); subjective elbow value (SEV); and patient satisfaction were assessed at least 2 years after LUCL reconstruction. The mean age of patients in the study was 46.9 years (range, 21-74 years), and the mean follow-up was 2.8 years after revision surgery. The mean MEPS was 78.9, and the mean QuickDASH score reached 20.4. The mean SEV was 78.6%, and 75% of the patients rated the surgery as good to excellent. Complications were detected in 14% of the patients, and 9 needed revision surgery, primarily owing to graft failure with recurrent instability (n = 5). LUCL reconstruction in patients with PLRI after release of the CEO can restore elbow stability and achieve high patient satisfaction. However, outcome scores and revision rates in this cohort were inferior to published outcomes of primary LUCL reconstruction for treatment of noniatrogenic or traumatic PLRI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis who have failed nonoperative treatment, open or percutaneous release of the common extensor origin (CEO) without subsequent reconstruction tends to result in good clinical outcomes. However, surgery can lead to iatrogenic injuries of the lateral collateral ligamentous complex, causing posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI).
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To determine the clinical outcomes of lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) reconstruction using a triceps tendon graft after failed open CEO surgery.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 103, patients underwent revision surgery at a single institution because of PLRI after failed open release of the CEO (Hohmann procedure) between January 2007 and October 2016. The primary surgery had been performed at other institutions in all cases. Of these patients, 72 were available for follow-up (49 by clinical examination, 23 by telephone interview). Standardized clinical examination; Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS); 11-item version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (QuickDASH); subjective elbow value (SEV); and patient satisfaction were assessed at least 2 years after LUCL reconstruction.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean age of patients in the study was 46.9 years (range, 21-74 years), and the mean follow-up was 2.8 years after revision surgery. The mean MEPS was 78.9, and the mean QuickDASH score reached 20.4. The mean SEV was 78.6%, and 75% of the patients rated the surgery as good to excellent. Complications were detected in 14% of the patients, and 9 needed revision surgery, primarily owing to graft failure with recurrent instability (n = 5).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
LUCL reconstruction in patients with PLRI after release of the CEO can restore elbow stability and achieve high patient satisfaction. However, outcome scores and revision rates in this cohort were inferior to published outcomes of primary LUCL reconstruction for treatment of noniatrogenic or traumatic PLRI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35155705
doi: 10.1177/23259671211069340
pii: 10.1177_23259671211069340
pmc: PMC8832605
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671211069340Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
J Hand Surg Am. 2015 Jul;40(7):1421-7
pubmed: 25979352
JSES Open Access. 2018 Apr 06;2(2):121-125
pubmed: 30675579
J Rheumatol. 2006 Oct;33(10):2053-59
pubmed: 16881095
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Dec;83(12):1823-8
pubmed: 11741061
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Feb 19;:
pubmed: 33606084
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973 Sep;55(6):1177-82
pubmed: 4758032
Br Med Bull. 2008;88(1):171-88
pubmed: 18819957
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006 May 18;7:44
pubmed: 16709254
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991 Mar;73(3):440-6
pubmed: 2002081
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Mar 16;(3):CD003525
pubmed: 21412883
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Jun;29(6):1223-1229
pubmed: 32245727
J Rheumatol. 1997 Feb;24(2):365-71
pubmed: 9034998
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Feb;36(2):261-6
pubmed: 18055917
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1992 Jan;1(1):47-55
pubmed: 22958970
Arthrosc Tech. 2020 Nov 25;9(12):e1951-e1956
pubmed: 33381405
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Oct;23(10):1527-31
pubmed: 25220200
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991 Oct;(271):170-9
pubmed: 1914292
Acta Orthop Scand. 2004 Oct;75(5):516-23
pubmed: 15513481
J Hand Ther. 1999 Jan-Mar;12(1):31-7
pubmed: 10192633
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Feb;79(2):225-33
pubmed: 9052544
Arthroscopy. 2014 Jul;30(7):866-71
pubmed: 24731385
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Nov;173(5):1379-82
pubmed: 10541124
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Jul;86(5):701-4
pubmed: 15274267
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979 Sep;61(6A):832-9
pubmed: 479229
Arthroscopy. 2017 Jun;33(6):1260-1268.e2
pubmed: 28412059
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2021 Aug 6;:
pubmed: 34363106
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975 Jul-Aug;(110):177-96
pubmed: 1098819
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Nov-Dec;17(6):954-60
pubmed: 18619863
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Feb;89(2):255-60
pubmed: 17272437
Am J Sports Med. 2021 Mar;49(3):830-837
pubmed: 32877230
Am J Sports Med. 1997 Nov-Dec;25(6):746-50
pubmed: 9397260
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008 Jan;16(1):19-29
pubmed: 18180389
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Oct;463:98-106
pubmed: 17632419
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Oct;27(10):1907-1912
pubmed: 30170794
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2014 Aug;26(4):414-27, 429
pubmed: 24253071
Z Orthop Unfall. 2013 Jun;151(3):296-301
pubmed: 23696161
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Jan;87(1):54-61
pubmed: 15686238
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 May;87(5):1120-5
pubmed: 15866979
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Mar;90(3):272-9
pubmed: 18310745
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1965 Dec;47(8):1533-6
pubmed: 5841026
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1961 Nov;43-B:752-7
pubmed: 14038135
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 Apr;85(3):342-6
pubmed: 12729105
J Hand Surg Am. 2013 Jan;38(1):184-201; quiz 201
pubmed: 23261198