Trauma to the Adult Elbow and Fractures of the Distal Humerus




Trauma to the Adult Elbow



Julie E. Adams
Scott P. Steinmann

Introduction: Scope and Purpose


The elbow functions to facilitate positioning of the hand in space; it serves as a mechanical lever through the forearm for lifting and as a means of force transmission. Motion at the joint is a combination of flexion, extension, and pronosupination that facilitates activities of daily living. Trauma to the elbow can be challenging to treat. The anatomy is complex and stability of the joint may be compromised by injury to the bones, ligaments, and soft tissue that confer stability. Moreover, the articular surfaces are unforgiving of small defects or malalignment and the elbow has an unfortunate tendency toward stiffness following trauma and/or immobilization. This chapter provides information to the interested reader on diagnosis and treatment of trauma to the elbow distal to the distal humerus.


Mechanism of Injury and Biomechanics


Several cadaveric series have investigated the mechanisms that create various injuries about the elbow. Amis and coworkers found radial head and coronoid fractures resulted following forearm impact during elbow flexion of less than 80 degrees, while olecranon fractures occurred with direct blows at 90 degrees and distal humerus fractures occurred with injuries while the elbow was flexed greater than 110 degrees. Fitzpatrick and colleagues investigated the position of forearm rotation on injury patterns during axial load, finding that terrible triad injuries resulted from a forearm pronated position, while most commonly, the supinated and axially loaded elbow resulted in a dislocation without fracture. In addition, rotation during the injury regardless of starting position resulted in failure of differing structures. When the ulna internally rotated, the medial structures were disrupted first, whereas with external rotation, the lateral structures failed first.


Evaluation


Examination


Evaluation of the injured elbow begins with a history and physical examination. The mechanism of injury is sought, details surrounding the injury and clues to associated injuries are assessed. Patients are queried about loss of consciousness and, in the setting of lacerations or abrasions, tetanus immunization status. Past medical history as it pertains to and influences current and future treatment is noted. Palpation and assessment of the limb proximal and distal to the elbow, particularly the wrist and forearm, is performed to exclude concomitant injury. The neurovascular status of the limb, including the status of the major peripheral is documented. Plain film radiographs in multiple planes are obtained to evaluate for bony injury or dislocation. If the elbow has been dislocated, an attempt is made to reduce the elbow. Although frequently reduction of dislocations are performed by emergency room staff, when it is done by the orthopaedic surgeon, important information regarding the stability of the elbow can be obtained. In general, the elbow may be reduced by application of gentle traction through the forearm with the upper arm stabilized and with a downward counterforce applied to the upper arm. The elbow is flexed and often a palpable clunk confirms reduction of the elbow ( Fig. 46A-1 ).




Figure 46A-1


Reduction of a posterior elbow dislocation consists of longitudinal traction ( A ), correction of lateral or medial displacement ( B ), and flexion of the elbow ( C ).


Following reduction, the elbow is gently extended to assess the arc and positions of instability, if any. If the elbow is completely stable through the arc of flexion and extension and there are no fractures that require treatment, immediate motion is commenced. If, however, the elbow has a tendency to subluxate, the positions of instability are noted, and the elbow is immobilized in the position of stability. If operative treatment is otherwise not indicated, a hinged elbow brace with the stop placed 20 degrees short of the position of instability is used, allowing full flexion of the elbow. Gradually the elbow is mobilized and extended over a few weeks’ time to allow full motion.


Imaging


Standard triple-view radiographs (posterior-anterior [PA], lateral, and oblique) are obtained. Postreduction views are obtained following reduction of any elbow dislocation. A radial head view is sometimes useful to assess any radial head pathology. Computed tomography (CT) scanning with the advent of 2-D and 3-D reconstructions has dramatically changed the evaluation of elbow trauma and improved our understanding of injury patterns and how to treat them.


Diagnosis and Classification


Any fractures are noted and appropriate treatment instituted according to the subsequent sections.


Management


Disorder or Injury: Radial Head Fractures


Radial head fractures are typically readily diagnosed based on examination and plain film radiographs. Patients are typically tender over the lateral aspect of the elbow, and may have pain with motion of the elbow particularly in pronosupination. It is important to exclude more involved injuries to the elbow, such as concomitant fractures or ligament injuries and exclude injuries to the forearm such as the Essex-Lopresti lesion; thus the patient should be specifically queried regarding wrist pain and examined at the forearm and wrist.


Radial head fractures may be classified into one of three types, according to the Mason classification ( Fig. 46A-2 ). A fourth type, which represented a radial head fracture associated with an elbow dislocation, was added by Johnston.




Figure 46A-2


Modified Mason classification system for radial head fractures.


Type I fractures are minimally displaced or nondisplaced and have no mechanical block to motion.


Mason type II fractures involve more than 2 mm of displacement and more than a third of the radial head. Mason type III fractures are comminuted, multifragmented fractures that are likely irreparable based on preoperative radiographs.


Emergent Treatment


Open injuries are treated with tetanus immunization, intravenous (IV) antibiotics, and débridement. Closed injuries are treated with reduction of any dislocation, and splinting or placement of a sling for stable, minimally displaced injuries.


Indications for Definitive Care


Options for management of radial head fractures include nonoperative treatment with early mobilization, fragment excision in the setting of a single fragment and/or a bony block to motion, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), radial head excision, or radial head replacement arthroplasty.


Patients who are seen within a few days of the injury may have an aspiration of the hematoma and the joint injected with local anesthesia. Frequently the hemarthrosis and pain make it difficult to assess motion and bony blocks to same. The aspiration may be performed via the “soft spot,” the center of a triangle between the radial head, lateral epicondyle, and the olecranon tip, or via the anterolateral portal site just anterior and distal to the radiocapitellar joint. A 19-gauge needle and a 5- or 10-cc syringe is used to aspirate the hematoma, which is discarded. The syringe is exchanged for 1% lidocaine or other local analgesic mixture, which is placed into the joint. Following this, which often helps to improve pain, pronosupination may be assessed ( Fig. 46A-3 ). Although use of aspiration with or without infusion of local analgesic can certainly be of diagnostic value, several series have investigated whether aspiration improves pain or clinical results and have questioned the value of injecting local analgesics. In some series, aspiration and injection resulted in improved pain, while in another, no difference was noted. One recent investigation showed no differences between aspiration alone or aspiration with infusion of local analgesic.




Figure 46A-3


Aspiration of the radiocapitellar joint is performed with a needle introduced through the center of a triangle formed by the radial head, the tip of the olecranon, and the lateral epicondyle.


Nonoperative Treatment


All type I fractures and many type II fractures may be treated nonoperatively provided that there is not a bony block to motion and that the articular surface is reasonably congruent, with an anticipated high rate of satisfactory outcomes.


An aspiration may be performed with or without infusion of local analgesic particularly if there is a question with respect to motion permitted by the fracture.


If nonoperative treatment is employed, the patient is offered a sling for comfort and asked to mobilize within a week. Patients are followed radiographically and clinically to ensure motion is coming along and further displacement does not change the treatment recommendations. Within approximately 4 to 6 weeks, most patients’ acute pain has resolved and motion arc has normalized or nearly normalized.


Surgical Treatment


Fragment excision may be considered in the setting of small fragments that are less than 25% of the head, which are too small, osteoporotic, or comminuted for fixation, and do not articulate with the proximal radial ulnar joint. The elbow should remain stable before and after fragment excision.


Radial ORIF is indicated in the setting of type II and fixable type III fractures and in the setting of radial neck injuries. Care should be taken to ensure that patients are not better served by either nonoperative treatment or radial head replacement. Recent series have highlighted that although ORIF has a high success rate across series, in some patients (type II fractures), the outcomes seem similar to nonoperative treatment with the disadvantage of a higher complication rate and cost.


In addition, for many type III fractures, radial head replacement may more reliably produce satisfactory outcomes and may represent a better option. In particular, the presence of three or more fragments in the setting of an unstable fracture of the radial head has a poorer prognosis, and if stable secure fixation cannot be achieved, radial head excision or replacement may be a superior option.


Fixation may be performed using screws or plate-and-screw constructs. Any hardware must be placed in the “safe zone,” or the region that does not articulate with the proximal radial ulnar joint. This represents the lateral region of the radial head and neck when the forearm is in a neutral position; alternatively it can be identified as the area bounded by the region between the Lister tubercle distally and the radial styloid.


Choice of fixation type is ideally lower profile screw fixation, provided that stable fixation may be achieved. Plate fixation is frequently followed by a need for hardware removal and poorer motion compared to screw fixation. For type III fractures, which preoperative radiographs suggest are irreparable based on the amount of comminution or multifragmentary pieces, replacement arthroplasty or excision may be considered. Excision is undesirable in the setting of instability of the elbow and should be avoided in such situations. In addition, in association with longitudinal instability of the forearm such as the Essex-Lopresti injury, radial head excision is to be avoided.


Surgical Anatomy.


The radial head is an eccentric dish-shaped structure with a variable offset from the neck and angled 15 degrees oriented away from the radial tuberosity, with implications for fracture fixation or prosthetic replacement. Likewise, the proximal radioulnar articulation needs to be considered in reconstructive or replacement procedures. The cartilage of the radial head represents an arc of about 280 degrees about the rim of the radius. Hardware placement should avoid the articulating region, which can be visually identified as a thickened area of cartilage. In addition, the safe zone for hardware placement has been defined as within a 90-degree arc bounded by the Lister tubercle and the radial styloid distally or simply the lateral aspect of the radial head when the forearm is in neutral.


The two most commonly used approaches to the radial head include the Kocher interval between the extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU) and anconeus and the common extensor splitting approach. The Kocher interval is far away from the region of the posterior interosseous nerve, but the lateral ulnar collateral ligament is at risk with this approach. The lateral collateral ligament complex includes a coalescence of several structures, including the most important stabilizing structure, the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL), the annular ligament, and the accessory lateral collateral ligament. The LUCL arises from the anterior inferior lateral epicondyle and inserts upon the crista supinatoris of the ulna. If the Kocher approach is used, during dissection, the surgeon attempts to preserve the ligament and enter the joint anterior to it.


An alternative exposure is to split the origin of the extensor digitorum communis at the lateral epicondyle ( Fig. 46A-4 ). This approach preserves the LUCL, but at the distal aspect of the surgical dissection the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) may be encountered. The PIN arises as the continuation of the deep radial nerve near the radiocapitellar joint. It then passes about the lateral aspect of the radius and through the supinator, which it innervates. To help protect the PIN during this approach, the forearm may be pronated, which results in the PIN falling more distally away from the surgical field of dissection. The surgeon should keep in mind that the PIN typically may be found between 2 and 5 cm distal to the radiocapitellar joint, depending on the size of the patient and position of forearm rotation.




Figure 46A-4


An approach to the radial head splitting the extensor digitorum communis (EDC) origin allows good access for fixation of fractures or radial head replacement and obviates risk of injury to the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL).


Positioning Techniques.


In general, the authors prefer supine positioning for the approach to the radial head. We also prefer general anesthesia, as positioning may be uncomfortable in the awake patient and the nerves may be immediately assessed in the postoperative period with general anesthesia as opposed to regional. The patient is placed supine and the arm prepped from fingertips to axilla. An arm table may be used or the arm may be placed across the patient’s chest. Alternatively, an arm board is very helpful to use so that the advantages of both positions may be exploited. The arm board may be rotated inward during part of the case or left at a right angle to facilitate exposure. It is also extraordinarily easy to rotate the arm board out of the field and allow for easy use of the mini fluoroscopy unit.


A sterile tourniquet is applied and later inflated to 200 mm Hg to provide hemostasis during the case. A mini fluoroscopy unit is used to image during the case.


Surgical Approach.


The authors prefer a lateral-based incision for exposure of isolated radial head or lateral-sided injuries. If it is thought that medial and lateral structures need to be addressed, an alternative is a single posterior incision; however, our preference is to make separate lateral- and medial-based incisions to limit the potential soft tissue dissection and potential for seroma formation under large skin flaps.


A gently curved incision is made centered over the lateral epicondyle and radial head. Subcutaneous nerves are identified and preserved and the muscular and tendinous origins of the extensor apparatus are exposed.


If the radial head fracture is accompanied by a concomitant LUCL injury, the approach exploits the ligament injury to perform the arthrotomy. With gentle probing, if it is not already readily apparent, the tissue defect over the lateral epicondyle and path of the LUCL avulsion can be identified. This represents the Kocher approach between the ECU and anconeus ( Fig. 46A-5 ). It is unlikely to injure the PIN with this approach as it is distant from the surgical dissection site, but if the collateral ligament is intact, it may be at risk of iatrogenic injury. Thus, this approach is not preferred unless the collateral ligament has avulsed.




Figure 46A-5


The Kocher approach exploits the interval between the anconeus and the extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU). Care is taken to avoid injury to the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL). This approach is particularly useful when the LUCL is avulsed off, such as with terrible triad injuries and the radial head is to be fixed or replaced and the LUCL repaired.

(Source: © 2004, Mayo.)


When the collateral ligament is intact but a radial head fracture needs to be addressed, we prefer an approach that splits the extensor digitorum communis (EDC) origin in line with its fibers. The forearm is kept in pronation, which rotates the PIN further away from the operative dissection field. The radial head is exposed by this capsulotomy and the fracture is identified.


Reduction and Fixation Techniques.


After exposure, the fracture is then assessed and it is determined if it is amenable to fixation or best served by radial head excision or arthroplasty. Although it may be technically possible to fix some fractures, fixation may be tenuous, and some fractures may be more appropriately treated with arthroplasty. A few recent series suggest that type III and some type II fractures that undergo fixation do poorly in the setting of fracture-dislocations, comminution, or in conjunction with three or more fracture fragments.


Provisional fixation may be obtained with small Kirschner wires (K-wires) and towel clips or small pointed bone reduction clamps. Ideally, small screws or plates are placed for definitive fixation. Screw fixation is preferred due to lower profile and improved motion postoperatively; in addition, there is a high rate of hardware removal with use of plates. Occasionally bone grafting may be helpful.


If the radial head is to be replaced, care should be taken to avoid placing too large an implant. The native radial head or its fragments are assembled on the back table and help to define the proper size of implant to place. It should be remembered that the eccentric inner dish shape of the native radial head is the guide for the appropriate size for the implant, thus choosing a smaller implant than the entire radial head. The lesser sigmoid notch may be used as a guide, but is less reliable than the native radial head. In general, the radial head should sit within 2 mm of the proximal radioulnar joint.


Most implant systems have modularity, allowing one to choose appropriate head, neck, and stem sizing to recreate a semblance of normal anatomy. Available radial head implants include fixated devices secured into the radial neck and shaft with cement or by a press-fit mechanism; alternatively they can be intentionally loose, smooth-stemmed implants that are intended to act as a smooth spacer. Bipolar implants that insert firmly into the radial shaft by a fixed mechanism are available, with an articulating head-neck junction to allow motion. The major head choices are anatomic (with a fixated stem) or nonanatomic (with a smooth mobile stem). To date, little information is available regarding measurable advantages of one implant over another. However, when anatomic designs are used, it is important to place these prostheses in an anatomically accurate position.


Pitfalls and Avoidance of Complications








    • Radial head excision: Pitfalls in the setting of radial head surgery include excision of a radial head in the setting of unrecognized Essex-Lopresti injury or ligament injury. The radial head is an important stabilizer to the elbow in the setting of ligament instability or longitudinal instability of the forearm and either repair or replacement is required in such settings. Intraoperatively, the “radial pull test” may be used to assess the competence of the forearm stabilizers (the interosseous membrane [IOM], and the triangular fibrocartilage complex [TFCC]). After the radial head is resected, 20 lb of longitudinal traction is applied at the radial neck while the wrist is examined with fluoroscopy. If migration of the radius occurs as evidenced by ulnar positive variance and a change in this variance of more than 3 mm, then the IOM is likely torn. If more than 6 mm is seen, then both the IOM as well as the TFCC are likely torn and all of the forearm longitudinal stabilizers are gone. In this setting, radial head replacement as well as stabilization of the distal radial ulnar joint and the forearm are recommended.



    • Radial head replacement: One common complication associated with prosthetic complication is “overstuffing of the radial head” with too large an implant. This can lead to overloading of the joint space and maltracking of the joint with accelerated articular wear of the joint and pain. This is particularly problematic in the setting of concomitant ligament injury. If the fragments of the native radial head are available, it is easiest to attempt to match the size of the native head, realizing that the metallic radial head should match the inner diameter of the dish of the radial head. Other complications can be related to implant choice. Care should be taken when anatomic radial head designs are placed, as nonanatomic placement of an intentionally anatomic, fixed design can lead to abnormal tracking and wear on the capitellum. In addition, in the setting of longitudinal instability of the forearm, bipolar type implants should be avoided, as the articulating joint at the neck may allow escape of the implant with axial loading.



    • Radial head ORIF: Pitfalls and complications in radial head fixation include an attempt to fix a radial head that might be better served by replacement arthroplasty, hardware prominence that may restrict motion (particularly common in the setting of plate fixation of fractures), and hardware issues associated with impingement at the proximal radioulnar joint or into the radiocapitellar joint. Attention to avoiding the articular surfaces as described in the fracture fixation section can help reduce this risk. Likewise, patients should be counseled preoperatively about the potential need for hardware removal particularly in the setting of radial head and neck fractures fixated with plates.




Management of Intraoperative Problems.


Intraoperative problems include difficulty fixing a fracture and need for conversion to radial head implant. It is therefore a good idea to have implants available for all anticipated possibilities. In general, we suggest having available a variety of small screws and plate and screw devices, a radial head implant, and being prepared to repair the collateral ligaments via bony tunnels or suture anchors. In addition, in the setting of gross instability, the surgeon should be prepared to proceed in a stepwise fashion to repair injured structures so that the patient will leave the operating room with a stable elbow. Typically, in the setting of instability, we address radial head fractures, coronoid fractures (if the fracture is large enough for fixation), and the LUCL. The elbow is assessed throughout the arc of motion for stability, and gentle stress view fluoroscopic scans are taken. If this fails to restore stability, then the medial collateral ligament may be addressed. If the elbow remains grossly unstable, a static external fixator may be placed. The pins are placed under direct visualization to avoid injury to major peripheral nerves. The fixator is placed such that the elbow is maintained in joint for a period of 4 weeks. Typically, it is removed in the operating room. First the bar is disconnected and the elbow is examined under anesthesia for instability. If it remains unstable, the bar is reconnected; however, in most cases, the elbow is now stable and the fixator is disassembled.


Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation.


Postoperatively, it is ideal if the radial head fixation is stable enough to permit early motion. If ligament injury is absent and the injury represents an isolated radial head fracture treated with stable fixation or implant arthroplasty, we typically place the patient in a splint and sling for comfort for a few days and initiate gentle range of motion exercises within a few days. If there has been an associated ligament injury, such as an LUCL and/or medial collateral ligament that has been repaired, then the patient is generally immobilized in a splint at 90 degrees in pronation (for LUCL repair), supination (for medial collateral ligament repair), or neutral (if both have been repaired), and subsequently allowed to start early flexion-extension motion provided stability permits it, with avoidance of terminal extension and forearm rotation. Pronosupination is permitted when the elbow is flexed greater than 90 degrees. At the 6-week mark, if full motion has not yet been achieved, one can consider nighttime extension splinting.


The role of and compliance with heterotopic ossification (HO) prophylaxis regimens remains a subject of discussion. In patients who can tolerate nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and have no renal or gastrointestinal (GI) contraindications, indomethacin sustained-release 75 mg daily for several weeks may play a role particularly in the setting of radial head replacement and in those who may be prone to HO (head injury, history of HO). Other factors associated with HO formation include presence of bony debris, hematoma, increasing duration of surgery and dissection.


Use of external beam irradiation (700 cGy in a single dose within 24 hours of surgery) as HO has been described but use is reserved for selected cases as a recent series suggests increased nonunion risk.


Complications


Complications include loss of motion, failure to heal, and HO.


Outcome


A high rate of satisfactory outcomes may be seen following nonoperative treatment of type I and many type II fractures. In one series, patients who developed problems were adequately treated with late radial head excision.


Patients treated with ORIF of radial head fractures tend to have improved radiographic findings (i.e., less degenerative changes than those with similar fractures treated nonoperatively), but also have a high rate of satisfactory outcomes as do patients treated with radial head replacement arthroplasty. Radiographic signs of degenerative changes following ORIF or replacement are not uncommon but are usually asymptomatic.


For many type III fractures, radial head replacement may more reliably produce satisfactory outcomes over radial head ORIF, especially in the presence of three or more fragments or ligament instability.


Disorder or Injury: Olecranon Fractures


Olecranon fractures may be classified according to the Mayo classification system, which includes characteristics of stability, displacement, and comminution.


Mayo type I fractures are nondisplaced; type II fractures are displaced stable fractures; and type III fractures are displaced unstable fractures. Subtypes A and B refer to absence and presence of comminution ( Fig. 46A-6 ).




Figure 46A-6


Mayo type I fractures are nondisplaced; type II fractures are displaced stable fractures; and type III fractures are displaced unstable fractures. Subtypes A and B refer to absence and presence of comminution.

(Source: Morrey BF, editor: The elbow, ed 2, Philadelphia, 2001, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, p 408.)


In addition to the types represented by this classification system, avulsion fractures and complex fracture-dislocations involving the radial head and/or coronoid may also occur.


Emergent Treatment


Patients presenting with elbow trauma are evaluated with appropriate radiographs and clinical examination. In the setting of an olecranon fracture or other fracture of the elbow, documentation of the neurovascular status, particularly the ulnar nerve, is made. The skin is inspected for any abrasions or lacerations. In the setting of a closed fracture, the patient may be splinted in a well-padded long arm splint and prepared for elective surgical management if indicated. Open fractures are treated with tetanus immunization update if indicated, IV antibiotics, and early surgical débridement.


Indications for Definitive Care


Selected Mayo type I fractures may be treated nonoperatively. Open fractures and Mayo type II and III fractures are indications for surgical management. In general, treatment options include casting or splinting, fragment excision and repair of the triceps, and ORIF.


Nonoperative Treatment


Nondisplaced fractures (Mayo type I) may be treated symptomatically and nonoperatively with no more than 3 weeks of immobilization in a long arm splint or cast in mid flexion. Typically, patients are closely followed with serial radiographs and clinical examination within 7 to 10 days. Radiographs are examined to ensure displacement does not occur, and clinically, patients are followed and mobilized early to avoid stiffness. Active resisted elbow extension and weight-bearing are avoided for 6 to 8 weeks.


Surgical Treatment


Surgical options include excision of fracture fragments and repair of the triceps tendon and ORIF.


Surgical Anatomy.


The olecranon is subcutaneous and is readily exposed surgically. The ulnar nerve is adjacent to the olecranon. Although ulnar neuritis following a simple olecranon fracture is believed to be uncommon, it is important to document the status of the ulnar nerve in the initial examination and subsequent examinations. The olecranon and coronoid process form the articulation with the distal humeral trochlea and confer bony stability and facilitate motion. The triceps attaches via a broad tendon insertion to the olecranon.


When surgical repair of the olecranon is performed, the surgeon should be aware that there is normally a “bare area” free of cartilage in the joint surface between the coronoid and olecranon tip. This area is exploited as the site of osteotome or saw exit when an olecranon osteotomy is performed. If the surgeon is unaware of this anatomic finding, structurally important portions of the olecranon might inadvertently be discarded during fixation of an olecranon fracture.


Positioning Techniques.


Positioning of the patient can be performed supine, prone, or lateral.


If the patient is supine, the arm may be draped over the chest and the bed “airplaned” to give the surgeon easy access to the arm. Often, an additional assistant is required to hold the arm in place and the anesthetist should confirm that the patient’s arm or surgeons’ hands do not disrupt the patient’s endotracheal tube, face, or body lying under the drapes. Lateral positioning is often helpful as it obviates the need for one assistant dedicated to stabilize the arm. The patient is placed on a beanbag, secured to the bed, and the arm placed over an arm holder. One of the authors (JEA) uses both lateral and supine positioning in her practice depending on the patient’s body habitus and the availability of assistants, while the other author (SPS) prefers supine positioning in all cases. A tourniquet is applied to the upper arm. Occasionally a patient will have a contraindication to tourniquet in the upper arm (e.g., presence of an active arteriovenous fistula). Infiltrating the skin with 1% lidocaine 1 : 100,000 with epinephrine is a helpful alternative to limit bleeding and limit the amount of anesthesia required; it should be remembered, however, that maximal vasoconstriction induced by the epinephrine occurs at 25 minutes after injection.


A mini C-arm unit provides intraoperative imaging and limits radiation exposure to the patient and surgical team. Prior to prepping and draping, the ability to obtain good images of the elbow in multiple planes is confirmed. The authors prefer general anesthesia during the procedure to facilitate patient comfort as position may be awkward otherwise.


Surgical Approach.


A straight incision is preferred, centered slightly medial to the midline of the posterior elbow. Full-thickness flaps are raised. In the setting of preoperative symptoms, the ulnar nerve is decompressed. The fracture is exposed, and following removal of hematoma, the fracture is inspected for final determination of treatment.


Reduction Techniques.


Provisional fixation may be applied with K-wires or pointed bone reduction clamps. It is helpful to use the intact distal humerus as a template for appropriate reduction.


Fixation Techniques.


Surgical options are described here.







    • Fragment excision: Excision and repair of the triceps tendon to the distal fragment is most appropriate for small proximal fragments, osteoporotic or comminuted fractures, and in the setting of low demand or elderly patients. The potential advantages of this technique include the absence of hardware (which may be prominent in the setting of ORIF) and obviating the need for bony healing. Easily up to 30% of the olecranon or more may be excised without implications on stability; some series suggest up to 80% may be excised. It is important to realize that the anterior stabilizers including the coronoid must be intact to consider excision of the proximal olecranon fragment lest instability occur postoperatively.



    • Following excision, the triceps is reattached to the bone via suture anchors or bony tunnels. Although the correct site for reattachment has previously been described as at the joint surface level, improved extension strength and a stable elbow have resulted after reattachment at the dorsal cortex of the ulna. Following wound closure, the elbow is immobilized for 4 to 6 weeks postoperatively.



    • Open reduction and internal fixation: Options include tension band wiring constructs, intramedullary devices, and plate and screw constructs. Tension band wiring with fine-gauge wire constructs with K-wires or cancellous screws can be a cost-effective and stable construct for fixation of noncomminuted fractures that do not have distal extension into the coronoid region. Intramedullary locking nail devices have been introduced as a low-profile option for fixation. Many manufacturers make purpose-made low-profile precontoured plating systems for fixation of olecranon fractures. Plate and screw constructs are the most appropriate fixation method for fractures with overt comminution, multiple fragments, or those with extension distal to the level of the coronoid.



    • Tension band wiring: The authors prefer K-wires that engage the anterior cortex to K-wires that traverse down the medullary canal or to use of a cancellous screw. Anterior engagement of the K-wires optimizes fixation and prevents rotation. Tension band wiring should be avoided in the setting of associated elbow instability or complex fractures of the elbow, in comminuted fractures, or those with distal fragments. The fracture is exposed and visualized to ensure that tension band fixation is an appropriate choice. The fracture is provisionally reduced and parallel 0.045- to 0.062-inch K-wires are driven from the proximal fragment obliquely into the distal fragment exiting anteriorly, avoiding overpenetration of the anterior cortex. Following appropriate positioning, the K-wires are backed out 5 to 10 mm so that the proximal end can be bent and impacted into the bone.



    • A hole for the tension band wire(s) is drilled perpendicular to the long axis of the ulna transversely with a 2.0- to 2.5-mm drill bit at the transition region at which the flatter proximal ulna becomes more triangularly shaped distally. The hole is placed sufficiently anterior that wire breakage of the dorsal cortex is unlikely. A 20-gauge wire is chosen and passed through the bony hole with aid of an angiocatheter or by hand, and a second wire is passed behind the triceps and just proximal to the K-wires using an angiocatheter needle. The wire ends are crossed over the dorsal ulna in a figure-of-eight and the two ends are twisted together on each side. A needle driver grasps and applies traction and twists each wire construct to tighten the wires simultaneously. The wire ends are cut and impacted into an area where they will not be prominent. As an alternative, two 22-gauge tension band wire constructs may be used instead of the single 20-gauge construct to decrease the prominence of the fixation construct. The K-wires are bent 180 degrees, cut, and impacted to capture the wire(s). Fluoroscopic images are obtained to ensure appropriate fixation and care is taken to ensure that the K-wires do not overpenetrate the anterior cortex ( Fig. 46A-7 ).




      Figure 46A-7


      Tension band wiring for this olecranon fracture ( A ) provided stable fixation ( B ).

      (Copyright JE Adams, MD.)



    • Plating: Following exposure of the fracture, provisional fixation is applied. The plate is chosen and applied to bone. Most precontoured systems have a proximal curve to the plate to allow the plate to capture the proximal olecranon and get as many screws as possible in the proximal fragment. The triceps tendon may be split over the proximal olecranon tip so that the plate can be apposed closer to the bone; however, although the plate appears to the eye flush with the proximal olecranon and triceps tendon on visual inspection, the radiographic images will have an apparent gap between the proximal plate and bone, which represents the soft tissue between the bone and plate, and is normal. Many systems have targeting fixation guides to allow for use of locked screws, particularly proximally, to optimize fixation in osteoporotic bone or when bicortical fixation is not possible. Most plating systems have a long oblique screw that engages the proximal and distal fragment, and typically exits the anterior cortex of the coronoid, which is more biomechanically favorable than screws that follow the medullary canal from the proximal fragment ( Fig. 46A-8 ).




      Figure 46A-8


      Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plate and screws resulted in stable fixation in this osteoporotic olecranon fracture.

      (Copyright JE Adams, MD.)




Pitfalls and Avoidance of Complications.


Complications include overpenetration of the anterior cortex in the setting of tension band fixation with K-wires or with drilling for screw placement. It is important to obtain good fluoroscopic images to ensure this does not occur. In addition, following completion of fixation, the elbow should be ranged in the flexion, extension, and pronosupination arc to ensure that a full arc of motion is possible (and there is not hardware impinging) and that there is no crepitans in the joint. Particularly with the proximal screw holes of plate and screw constructs, hardware may be intraarticular, and most constructs have locking options to allow for unicortical fixation. Likewise, when inspecting intraoperative images, one should remember that the cross section of the olecranon is triangular, meaning that there is a central peak with valleys on the joint on the medial and lateral side. Thus, on the lateral view, screws may appear to be in bone, but can in fact be in the joint.


Management of Intraoperative Problems.


Intraoperatively, surgeons should be prepared to revise their fixation plan if necessary. In some cases, unanticipated comminution or fracture extension may cause the surgeon to favor plate fixation over tension band wiring.


Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation.


Following fixation of the fracture, the wound is closed in layers and the elbow is splinted in mid flexion. Provided that stability of fracture fixation is satisfactory, range of motion exercises are initiated within a few days. The patient is seen within a few days to a week for range of motion assessment and wound inspection. A supervised physiotherapy program may be helpful particularly for patients who are hesitant to move the arm. Radiographs are obtained and repeated at 6 weeks and until bone healing is complete.


Complications


Complications associated with olecranon fractures include nonunion, infection, loss of motion, ulnar nerve symptoms, arthrosis, and need for additional procedures particularly hardware removal.


Loss of the terminal 10 to 15 degrees of extension is particularly common and appears to be related to immobilization.


Degenerative changes in the ulnohumeral joint are noted on plain film radiographs in 20% to 50% of patients up to 15 to 25 years following olecranon fracture.


Prominent hardware is a common complication following ORIF of olecranon fractures. Rate of bothersome hardware requiring removal varies across series but can be as high as 81% in some series. It is thought that precontoured plates may be associated with a lower rate of symptomatic hardware.


Outcome


Patients generally have acceptable outcomes with little adverse sequelae following fixation of olecranon fractures. Decreased range of motion, particularly terminal extension, radiographic joint degenerative changes, and symptomatic hardware, are common but generally not devastating complications.


Disorder or Injury: Coronoid Fractures


Coronoid fractures are rarely seen in isolation but more commonly occur in the setting of fracture-dislocations of the elbow. Although previously the importance of coronoid fractures was not recognized, recent series have documented the role of the coronoid to stability of the elbow and increasing interest has focused on proper assessment and management.


In addition, the widespread use and availability of axial imaging such as CT scanning with 2-D and 3-D reconstructions has improved our understanding of fracture patterns and associated injuries.


Classification of coronoid fractures includes the Regan-Morrey classification system based on lateral plain film radiographs, and a modification based on CT scanning.


Regan and Morrey described a three-part classification system based on lateral plain film radiographs ( Fig. 46A-9 ). Although it is clear that the Regan-Morrey system does not adequately describe true anatomic fracture patterns, it is easy to apply, remains in wide usage, and is useful as a broad indicator of injury severity.




Figure 46A-9


The Regan-Morrey classification system describes coronoid fractures based upon the lateral plain film radiographs.


Fracture types include type I (tip fracture of the coronoid), type II (<50% of the coronoid), and type III (>50% of the coronoid). Type I fractures are typically a shear fracture of the tip; previously they have been described as an avulsion fracture; however, the mechanism is shearing rather than avulsion. This common fracture type is typically seen in conjunction with posterolateral instability or dislocation. Type II fractures are commonly seen in the setting of terrible triad injuries, while type III fractures are often comminuted and represent substantial trauma to the elbow.


The use of 2-D and 3-D CT scanning has made it clear that two additional fracture patterns occur in oblique orientations. O’Driscoll and colleagues recognized an anteromedial coronoid fracture pattern and highlighted the importance of the anteromedial facet in providing stability against varus posteromedial forces ( Table 46A-1 ).



TABLE 46A-1

CORONOID FRACTURES CLASSIFICATION (O’Driscoll)




































Fracture Subtype Description
Tip 1 ≤ 2 mm of coronoid bony height (i.e., “flake” fracture)
2 > 2 mm of coronoid height
Anteromedial 1 Anteromedial rim
2 Anteromedial rim + tip
3 Anteromedial rim + sublime tubercle (±tip)
Base 1 Coronoid body and base
2 Transolecranon basal coronoid fractures

Copyright © 2009 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc.


Anteromedial coronoid fractures result from application of varus posteromedial rotatory forces, which cause injury to the LUCL and impaction of the medial coronoid against the medial portion of the trochlea. A fracture of the anteromedial coronoid results. If the sublime tubercle is involved, the elbow becomes unstable medially. Due to the incompetent LUCL laterally, the lateral joint space opens and with narrowing at the medial side. The abnormal joint contact forces lead to early degenerative changes medially and arthritic changes.


Similar to the anteromedial fracture pattern, examination of CT scanning has revealed an anterolateral fracture pattern.


To account for these fracture patterns in addition to the original Regan-Morrey types I through III classification, our group proposed a modification with an addition of type IV anterolateral and anteromedial patterns, based on our review of 52 consecutive CT scans evaluating fracture morphology ( Fig. 46A-10 ).




Figure 46A-10


A revision of the Regan-Morrey classification includes the original types I, II, and III, but also accounts for the anteromedial (line 4) and anterolateral (line 5) fracture types and is based upon a review of computed tomography (CT) scans.

(Source: From Adams JE, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Kallina CF, Morrey BF, Steinmann SP: Fractures of the coronoid: morphology based upon computer tomography scanning. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(6):782–788, 2012.)


Emergent Treatment


Because it is often difficult to appreciate and classify these fractures, it is important to carefully examine plain film radiographs pre- and postreduction in the setting of an elbow dislocation. Apparent isolated radial head fractures in the setting of an elbow dislocation should be carefully inspected to evaluate for a possible coronoid fracture. Particularly in the setting of multiple fractures or complex trauma, the origin of some fracture fragments can be difficult to determine. CT scanning with 2-D and 3-D reconstructions is often helpful to understand the fracture patterns and to develop a treatment plan.


Indications for Definitive Care


Tip fractures and anterolateral coronoid fractures: Tip and anterolateral fractures are the most common types of coronoid fractures, typically occurring in the setting of posterolateral rotatory instability and elbow dislocation, and sometimes in the setting of a radial head fracture and/or “terrible triad” injury. Most of these fractures are treated nonoperatively, provided the elbow is stable and there are no other injuries mandating treatment. The patient is allowed to mobilize early within a stable arc of motion as overimmobilization is deleterious.


Surgery for these fractures is indicated only in the setting of a radial head fracture that needs stabilization or if gross instability of the elbow is present. Small fractures without concomitant injury (or with minimally or nondisplaced radial head fractures) and/or those in which the elbow is stable following reduction may be amenable to nonoperative management and may, in some cases, be treated similar to a simple elbow dislocation.


Anteromedial coronoid fractures result from axial loading and a varus posteromedial rotatory force. The LUCL injury allows the elbow to rotate and collapse into varus, forcing the anteromedial coronoid into the medial trochlea and causing a “collapsed coronoid” injury to the anteromedial coronoid. The radial head is typically spared. On radiographs, the injury may deceptively appear simple, with small, insignificant-appearing fracture fragments. However, on the PA or anterior-posterior (AP) of the elbow, asymmetry of the joint space with widening laterally and narrowing medially can be a clue to this injury; this represents a partial subluxation of the joint and an indication for operative treatment. Often an examination under anesthesia and fluoroscopy is helpful.


Type II and III fractures involve half or more of the coronoid process. Basal fractures are often high-energy injuries and are often associated with transolecranon fractures; these type III injuries usually require surgical stabilization.


Nonoperative Treatment


Nonoperative treatment is indicated in the setting of a stable elbow with a congruent joint. If nonoperative treatment is undertaken, the elbow is allowed motion through a stable arc in the flexion-extension plane, typically in a hinged elbow brace limiting terminal extension. Over the course of time, the elbow is progressively allowed more extension. Radiographic follow-up is important to ensure that the joint remains congruently located.


Surgical Treatment


Options for surgical treatment include ORIF with screws, suture, or plate and screw constructs, surgical excision, or reconstruction of the coronoid with graft or prosthesis, outcomes of which are at present limited to case series or case reports.


Surgical Anatomy.


The coronoid process extends medially and proximally from the ulna, with several facets that serve to deepen the articular cup that the humerus rests in. The radial head and coronoid serve as a bony constraint to subluxation of the elbow; the coronoid in particular protects against varus instability of the elbow. The proximal ulna is narrower than the distal humerus; on the lateral side the radial head articulates with the capitellum and the coronoid at the proximal radioulnar joint; medially, the coronoid articulates with the humeral trochlea and flares medially to match the humeral width via the sublime tubercle. Thus, approximately 60% of the coronoid in this medial extension is unsupported by the proximal ulnar region, which makes it vulnerable to fracture. In addition, the anterior band of the medial collateral ligament (MCL), which protects the elbow against valgus stresses, inserts on the sublime tubercle. Proximity of the ulnar nerve and the overlying flexor pronator muscles and nearby MCL make surgical approaches to the coronoid challenging.


Positioning Techniques.


The patient is generally positioned supine as described in the radial head fracture fixation section. This allows for the arm to be draped over the body or placed abducted from the body and with the shoulder internally rotated with the forearm placed on an arm board.


Surgical Approach and Fracture Reduction and Fixation.


Surgical approach to anterolateral or tip fractures: If the radial head fracture is approached laterally, and a sizable tip or anterolateral fracture is present (>5 mm) then surgical stabilization of the coronoid fracture can be performed through the radial head defect. Commonly, headless, cannulated screws are passed up into the fragment from the dorsal surface of the ulna with aid of fluoroscopy and a targeted drill guide, such as an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) guide. Although small fracture fragments have been sutured to the rest of the coronoid, the end result of stabilization of fracture fragments with suture is minimal, and they may often be ignored or excised provided that the elbow is stable.


Anteromedial fractures: Operative treatment includes an examination under anesthesia and fluoroscopy to confirm the direction and pattern of instability. Surgical management involves fixation of the anteromedial fracture and addressing the lateral instability with repair of the collateral ligament. Occasionally fragments are too small and comminuted for fixation, and a static fixator may be applied to resist varus forces and allow the coronoid to heal.


The elbow may be approached with either a single posterior incision with elevation of flaps medially and laterally or via two separate incisions on the medial and lateral sides (authors’ preference). On the medial side the ulnar nerve is identified and protected. It is decompressed but left in situ. The coronoid is approached via the “floor of the cubital tunnel,” and from distal working to proximal ( Fig. 46A-11 ). The flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) and flexor pronator group muscles are elevated from the ulna distally to proximally. As one proceeds, the sublime tubercle is palpated and by working distal to proximal, the anterior band of the MCL can be identified and preserved as the coronoid is identified and exposed.




Figure 46A-11


The coronoid may be approached by retracting the ulnar nerve.


If the fracture is of sufficient size, fixation can be achieved by screws aimed from dorsal to anterior; alternatively a plate may be used as a buttress in the setting of comminution.


Following rigid fixation of the coronoid, stability is again assessed under fluoroscopy. Rarely, if the elbow is stable, the LUCL may not need to be addressed. However, if there is any suspicion of subluxation, a low threshold to address the LUCL is held. A second lateral incision may be made and the Kocher interval is exposed. Typically, the LUCL avulses off of the lateral epicondyle; it may be sutured and repaired to the lateral epicondyle with bony tunnels or suture anchors. Following fixation, the elbow is again ranged and gently stressed under fluoroscopy. If there is any residual instability, it is better to apply a static external fixation to augment the fixation rather than risk recurrent or residual instability.


Basal fractures: If there is an associated radial head fracture, this is rigidly fixed or replaced; if it is replaced, this may be used as a window to facilitate reduction of the coronoid. However, most commonly, the basal fracture will require a separate medial exposure as described in the anteromedial fracture section. When fixing these fractures, attention is paid to elevation and reduction and fixation of central impacted fragments to restore the anterior restraint to the humerus and restoration of the sublime tubercle fragment containing the MCL insertion. Fixation is typically obtained by small screws or plate and screw constructs or some combination of the two.


If there is an associated transolecranon injury, the fracture may be repaired with access via the olecranon fracture ( Fig. 46A-12 ). The proximal olecranon fragment is retracted proximally, exposing the coronoid and allowing for fixation usually with small headless or buried headed screws. The olecranon fracture can then be fixed in the usual fashion with a plate and screw construct.




Figure 46A-12


Fractures of the coronoid in which an olecranon fracture is also present allows exposure and fixation of the coronoid through the olecranon defect.


Pitfalls and Avoidance of Complications.


During surgical fixation with approaches from the medial side, the fracture should be exposed from distally to proximally. This allows the surgeon to “creep up” on the fracture without inadvertently injuring the collateral ligament. The ulnar nerve should be carefully protected during the case. The fracture fragment may be fixed with a buttress plate.


Management of Intraoperative Problems.


An examination of the patient while under anesthesia as a first step during the procedure is helpful to identify injured structures and to determine which structures will need to be addressed during the procedure. It is important to ensure that the patient leaves the operating room with the elbow in a stable arc of motion and with a congruent reduction. It is better to apply an external fixation with the elbow congruently reduced than risk redislocation or residual malalignment.


Typically this is left in place for 4 weeks, then removed in the operating room. Prior to removing the pins, the connecting bar is disassembled, leaving the pins in bone. The elbow is then examined under fluoroscopy to determine if it remains reduced and to inspect arc of motion. If the elbow continues to be unstable, the bar connectors may be reapplied and fluoroscopy confirms the elbow is locked in a reduced position. If the elbow is stable, the pins may be removed. A manipulation under anesthesia may be performed if indicated.


The authors do not favor hinged elbow fixators, which have some inherent disadvantages (including difficulty of application and cost), and see no advantage to them over static fixators.


Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation.


Rehabilitation of the elbow is contingent on the stability of the fixation construct and the elbow joint itself, which was obtained intraoperatively. If the fixation construct is stable to allow early motion, this is ideal. The motion allowed must be in an arc in which the elbow remains congruently reduced and does not subluxate. Although a goal of surgery is to achieve sufficient construct integrity to mobilize the elbow, joint stability should not be sacrificed to prematurely mobilize the elbow. In addition, in some cases in which a stable joint cannot be achieved by other means, the elbow may be congruently reduced and an external fixator applied.


Complications


Complications associated with coronoid fractures include ulnar nerve neuritis, stiffness of the elbow, residual instability, and arthrosis.


Outcome


Little information is available regarding outcomes of coronoid fractures. This is related in part because these injuries typically exist in a complex with other elbow pathology; in part, because of the variable fracture patterns and variable associated injuries that exist, and also because of the relatively recent recognition of the importance of the coronoid. Regan and Morrey treated 33 of 37 injuries nonoperatively, with only three ORIFs and one débridement, and found that prolonged immobilization for these injuries resulted in poor outcomes. In part because of this and also because of an increased recognition of the role of the coronoid in elbow stability, our follow-up series from the same institution used operative treatment more frequently for Regan-Morrey type II (76%) and III (100%) injuries. Patients in whom concomitant injuries were present or those with worse fracture types had poorer outcomes than those without associated injuries or better fracture types. However, more aggressive treatment to restore stability to the elbow and allow stable mobilization resulted in better outcomes in the second series relative to the first.


Disorder or Injury: Elbow Dislocations


Elbow dislocations may occur as simple injuries (without associated fractures) or as complex injuries with associated fractures. Dislocations are named according to the direction of the forearm relative to the humerus and are most commonly posterior or posterolateral.


Emergent Treatment


Prereduction radiographs are obtained and the elbow dislocation is reduced as described earlier. After reduction, gentle range of motion is performed to evaluate the stability of the elbow. Postreduction films are obtained. The elbow is splinted at 90 degrees of flexion or placed in a sling if entirely stable throughout the motion arc. The neurovascular status of the arm is assessed before and after reduction.


Indications for Definitive Care


Many elbow dislocations are stable following reduction and all that is needed is mobilization. Others remain stable in a small arc of motion or are unstable and may require treatment for the instability or for associated injuries.


Nonoperative Treatment


In the setting of simple elbow dislocations, an early active motion protocol following reduction is safe and effective. Ross and colleagues investigated U.S. Naval Academy students with simple elbow dislocations who underwent closed reduction. Early motion was permitted and immobilization avoided. A high rate of satisfactory outcomes was noted, with only a single patient with a redislocation.


In those in whom the elbow is unstable in some arc of motion, typically full extension, but in whom concomitant injuries do not mandate surgical treatment, the elbow is immobilized 20 to 30 degrees more flexed than the position of instability. After 7 to 10 days, the elbow may be reassessed clinically and radiographically, and placed into a hinged elbow splint allowing full flexion but limiting extension. Gradually, over the course of a few weeks, the elbow is followed clinically and radiographically and it may be gradually extended and then the splint discontinued provided congruent reduction remains. In some cases, apparent “gapping” of the joint may be seen but does not represent instability and is treated with active elbow flexion.


Surgical Treatment


Surgical treatment is indicated when concomitant injuries provide an indication for surgical treatment or in the setting of a grossly unstable elbow that is unstable in any position.


Surgical Anatomy.


Stability to the elbow joint is conferred by the anterior and posterior capsule, the medial and lateral collateral ligament complexes, and bony congruity, and dynamic stability is provided by actions of the muscles crossing the joint. On the medial side, the MCL includes the anterior oblique ligament, the posterior oblique ligament, and the transverse ligament. The anterior bundle of the MCL is the most important stabilizer to valgus stresses. It has two bands, which both arise from the anterior inferior medial epicondyle. The anterior band inserts on the sublime tubercle while the posterior band inserts along the semilunar notch. On the lateral side, the lateral ligament complex includes the radial collateral ligament, the LUCL, the annular ligament, and the accessory lateral collateral ligament (LCL). The LUCL serves as the major lateral ligamentous stabilizer. It arises from the inferior aspect of the lateral epicondyle and inserts on the crista supinatoris. It has near isometry during the flexion-extension arc. The annular ligament wraps about the radial head and functions to stabilize it. The annular ligament arises and inserts on the anterior and posterior margins of the lesser sigmoid notch. Because the radial head has an eccentric shape, the anterior leaf of the ligament becomes tight in supination and the posterior portion becomes tight in pronation.


Positioning.


In general, the patient is positioned supine with an arm table or arm board, unless the concomitant injuries are better addressed with other positioning. It is important to make sure that good fluoroscopic images can be obtained during the procedure. The arm is prepped from fingertips to axilla in case an external fixation device needs to be used.


Surgical Approach and Reduction and Fixation.


An examination of the patient under anesthesia using fluoroscopy as a first step during the procedure is helpful to identify injured structures and to determine which structures will need to be addressed during the procedure. In the setting of a “terrible triad” injury, the radial head and coronoid are fractured and the lateral ligament disrupted. Attention to a stepwise approach fixing the radial head, addressing the coronoid fracture if possible, and repairing the lateral collateral ligament will often restore stability; the MCL is addressed if necessary, and an elbow fixator may be applied if stability is not achieved by other means.


The surgical approach to the LUCL is detailed in the section on radial head fractures. In general in the acute setting, the LUCL is avulsed from the lateral epicondyle, and gentle palpation of the extensor apparatus may reveal the defect that can be exploited for exposure between the anconeus and ECU (Kocher approach). Any radial head pathology is addressed and then the ligament is repaired to bone using suture anchors or bony tunnels. It is important to keep in mind the origin point of the collateral ligament, which is at the central aspect of the “spool” of the capitellum. There will often be a “bare” area or “bald epicondyle” from which the tissue has avulsed. A suture anchor may be placed in this site and locking stitches used to secure the ligament. Alternatively, bony tunnels with drill holes exiting the posterior aspect of the epicondyle may be used and the ligament and associated tissue prepared with a running locking stitch. The sutures limbs are passed through the bony tunnels and tied over a bony bridge. It is important to tension and tie sutures when the elbow is congruently reduced.


On the medial side, the MCL is often avulsed together with the flexor pronator group. In such situations, the flexor pronator group and MCL are repaired to the epicondylar origin with bony tunnels or suture anchors as described earlier for the LUCL. In the authors’ experiences, it is rare to need to address the medial ligament, although it is commonly torn.


It is important to ensure that the patient leaves the operating room with the elbow in a stable arc of motion and with a congruent reduction. It is better to apply an external fixation with the elbow congruently reduced than risk redislocation or residual malalignment. The external fixator should be applied through open skin incisions, particularly proximally where the radial nerve is vulnerable. Direct visualization of the proximal pin sites is made and the external fixator is applied.


Typically this is left in place for 4 weeks, then removed in the operating room. Prior to removing the pins, the connecting bar is disassembled, leaving the pins in bone. The elbow is then examined under fluoroscopy to determine if it remains reduced and to inspect arc of motion. If the elbow continues to be unstable, the bar connectors may be reapplied and fluoroscopy confirms the elbow is locked in a reduced position. If the elbow is stable, the pins may be removed. A manipulation under anesthesia may be performed if indicated.


The authors do not favor hinged elbow fixators, which have some inherent disadvantages (including difficulty of application and cost), and see no advantage to them over static fixators.


Pitfalls and Avoidance of Complications.


In the setting of a radial head fracture where ligament structures are torn, it becomes more difficult to appropriately choose a radial head implant size and the tendency becomes one of choosing a too large implant to try to restore stability to the elbow. This should be recognized and the appropriately sized implant obtained. It is helpful to use the native radial head as a guide and to carefully examine the fluoroscopic views. It can likewise be difficult to appropriately tension ligament repairs in the setting of a grossly unstable elbow with both sides being unstable.


Management of Intraoperative Problems.


Care to appropriately and stepwise address the injured contributors to stability of the elbow can reduce the risk of complications. It is helpful to have an external fixator available during the case if needed.


Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation.


Postoperative care and rehabilitation depends on the stability obtained intraoperatively and the structures addressed. In general, the elbow is rehabilitated with elbow in a hinged elbow brace allowing flexion but limiting terminal extension and gradually increasing extension over time. The forearm position depends on the competence of the ligament structures. If the lateral ligament structures are injured but the medial side is competent, the forearm is positioned into pronation. If the lateral structures are competent, but the medial-sided structures are injured, the forearm is placed into supination. If both the medial and lateral ligament structures have been injured, the forearm is placed into a neutral position.


Complications


Complications following elbow instability include residual instability, pain, and loss of motion.


Outcomes


Outcomes following simple elbow dislocations are for the most part good; however, patients do report some residual function difficulty. A group of 110 Scottish patients were noted to have a high rate of subjectively reported pain and instability. Interestingly, patients who reported instability in many cases did not have demonstrable instability on examination; patients who reported no instability in some cases had asymptomatic demonstrable instability on examination.


Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews


Several excellent meta-analyses and systematic reviews exist regarding the subjects of this chapter and in general shape the treatment recommendations provided in this chapter.


Conclusion


Management of traumatic injuries about the elbow can be challenging. Knowledge of the injury patterns and anatomic structures can facilitate improved nonoperative and surgical management.


References


The level of evidence (LOE) is determined according to the criteria provided in the preface.


  • 1. An KN, Morrey BF: Biomechanics of the elbow. Morrey BF The elbow and its disorders . 1993. WB Saunders Company Philadelphia: pp. 53-72.
  • 2. Amis AA, Miller JH: The mechanisms of elbow fractures: an investigation using impact tests in vitro. Injury 1995; 26: pp. 163-168.
  • 3. Fitzpatrick MJ, Diltz M, McGarry MH, et. al.: A new fracture model for “terrible triad” injuries of the elbow: influence of forearm rotation on injury patterns. J Orthop Trauma 2012; 26: pp. 591-596.
  • 4. Ross G, McDevitt ER, Chronister R, et. al.: Treatment of simple elbow dislocation using an immediate motion protocol. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27: pp. 308-311. LOE IV
  • 5. Adams JE, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Kallina CF, et. al.: Fractures of the coronoid: morphology based upon computer tomography scanning. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21: pp. 782-788. LOE III
  • 6. Doornberg J, Lindenhovius A, Kloen P, et. al.: Two and three-dimensional computed tomography for the classification and management of distal humeral fractures. Evaluation of reliability and diagnostic accuracy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: pp. 1795-1801.
  • 7. Mason ML: Some observations on fractures of the head of the radius with a review of one hundred cases. Br J Surg 1954; 42: pp. 123-132. LOE III
  • 8. Johnston GW: A follow-up of one hundred cases of fracture of the head of the radius with a review of the literature. Ulster Med J 1962; 31: pp. 51-56.
  • 9. Holdsworth BJ, Clement DA, Rothwell PN: Fractures of the radial head–the benefit of aspiration: a prospective controlled trial. Injury 1987; 18: pp. 44-47.
  • 10. Quigley TB: Aspiration of the elbow joint in the treatment of fractures of the head of the radius. N Engl J Med 1949; 240: pp. 915.
  • 11. Fleetcroft JP: Fractures of the radial head: early aspiration and mobilisation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1984; 66: pp. 141-142.
  • 12. Chalidis BE, Papadopoulos PP, Sachinis NC, et. al.: Aspiration alone versus aspiration and bupivacaine injection in the treatment of undisplaced radial head fractures: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009; 18: pp. 676-679.
  • 13. Miller GK, Drennan DB, Maylahn DJ: Treatment of displaced segmental radial-head fractures. Long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981; 63: pp. 712-717.
  • 14. Akesson T, Herbertsson P, Josefsson PO, et. al.: Primary nonoperative treatment of moderately displaced two-part fractures of the radial head. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: pp. 1909-1914. LOE IV
  • 15. Arner O, Ekengren K, Von Schreeb T: Fractures of the head and neck of the radius; a clinical and roentgenographic study of 310 cases. Acta Chir Scand 1957; 112: pp. 115-134.
  • 16. Poulsen JO, Tophoj K: Fracture of the head and neck of the radius. Follow-up on 61 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1974; 45: pp. 66-75.
  • 17. Bakalim G: Fractures of radial head and their treatment. Acta Orthop Scand 1970; 41: pp. 320-331.
  • 18. Herbertsson P, Josefsson PO, Hasserius R, et. al.: Displaced Mason type I fractures of the radial head and neck in adults: a fifteen- to thirty-three-year follow-up study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14: pp. 73-77. LOE III
  • 19. Lindenhovius AL, Felsch Q, Ring D, et. al.: The long-term outcome of open reduction and internal fixation of stable displaced isolated partial articular fractures of the radial head. J Trauma 2009; 67: pp. 143-146.
  • 20. Furey MJ, Sheps DM, White NJ, et. al.: A retrospective cohort study of displaced segmental radial head fractures: is 2 mm of articular displacement an indication for surgery?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: pp. 636-641.
  • 21. Ring D, Quintero J, Jupiter JB: Open reduction and internal fixation of fractures of the radial head. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84: pp. 1811-1815. LOE III
  • 22. Ruan HJ, Fan CY, Liu JJ, et. al.: A comparative study of internal fixation and prosthesis replacement for radial head fractures of Mason type III. Int Orthop 2009; 33: pp. 249-253.
  • 23. Grewal R, MacDermid JC, Faber KJ, et. al.: Comminuted radial head fractures treated with a modular metallic radial head arthroplasty: study of outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: pp. 2192-2200. LOE IV
  • 24. Soyer AD, Nowotarski PJ, Kelso TB, et. al.: Optimal position for plate fixation of complex fractures of the proximal radius: a cadaver study. J Orthop Trauma 1998; 12: pp. 291-293.
  • 25. Caputo AE, Mazzocca AD, Santoro VM: The nonarticulating portion of the radial head: anatomic and clinical correlations for internal fixation. J Hand Surg [Am] 1998; 23: pp. 1082-1090.
  • 26. Smith GR, Hotchkiss RN: Radial head and neck fractures: anatomic guidelines for proper placement of internal fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1996; 5: pp. 113-117.
  • 27. Smith AM, Morrey BF, Steinmann SP: Low profile fixation of radial head and neck fractures: surgical technique and clinical experience. J Orthop Trauma 2007; 21: pp. 718-724.
  • 28. King GJ, Zarzour ZD, Patterson SD, et. al.: An anthropometric study of the radial head: implications in the design of a prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16: pp. 112-116.
  • 29. Adams JE, Steinmann SP: Chapter 3—Anatomy and kinesiology of the elbow. 2011. Mosby Philadelphia, PA:
  • 30. Adams JE, Steinmann SP: Nerve injuries about the elbow. J Hand Surg [Am] 2006; 31: pp. 303-313.
  • 31. Kleinert JM, Mehta S: Radial nerve entrapment. Orthop Clin North Am 1996; 27: pp. 305-315.
  • 32. Witt JD, Kamineni S: The posterior interosseous nerve and the posterolateral approach to the proximal radius. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: pp. 240-242.
  • 33. Diliberti T, Botte MJ, Abrams RA: Anatomical considerations regarding the posterior interosseous nerve during posterolateral approaches to the proximal part of the radius. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82: pp. 809-813.
  • 34. Strauch RJ, Rosenwasser MP, Glazer PA: Surgical exposure of the dorsal proximal third of the radius: how vulnerable is the posterior interosseous nerve?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1996; 5: pp. 342-346.
  • 35. Frank SG, Grewal R, Johnson J, et. al.: Determination of correct implant size in radial head arthroplasty to avoid overlengthening. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: pp. 1738-1746.
  • 36. van Riet RP, van Glabbeek F, de Weerdt W, et. al.: Validation of the lesser sigmoid notch of the ulna as a reference point for accurate placement of a prosthesis for the head of the radius: a cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89: pp. 413-416.
  • 37. Adams JE, Steinmann SP: Implant options for elbow arthroplasty. Lee DH Total elbow arthroplasty . 2009. American Society for Surgery of the Hand Chicago, IL: pp. 49-52.
  • 38. Alolabi B, Studer A, Gray A, et. al.: Selecting the diameter of a radial head implant: an assessment of local landmarks. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: pp. 1395-1399.
  • 39. Berschback JC, Lynch TS, Kalainov DM, et. al.: Clinical and radiographic comparisons of two different radial head implant designs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: pp. 1108-1120.
  • 40. Adams JE, Culp RW, Osterman AL: Interosseous membrane reconstruction for the Essex-Lopresti injury. J Hand Surg [Am] 2010; 35: pp. 129-136.
  • 41. Athwal GS, Rouleau DM, MacDermid JC, et. al.: Contralateral elbow radiographs can reliably diagnose radial head implant overlengthening. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: pp. 1339-1346.
  • 42. Birkedal JP, Deal DN, Ruch DS: Loss of flexion after radial head replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004; 13: pp. 208-213.
  • 43. Van Glabbeek F, van Riet RP, Baumfeld JA, et. al.: The kinematic importance of radial neck length in radial head replacement. Med Eng Phys 2005; 27: pp. 336-342.
  • 44. Van Riet RP, Van Glabbeek F, Verborgt O, et. al.: Capitellar erosion caused by a metal radial head prosthesis. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: pp. 1061-1064.
  • 45. Baldwin K, Hosalkar HS, Donegan DJ, et. al.: Surgical resection of heterotopic bone about the elbow: an institutional experience with traumatic and neurologic etiologies. J Hand Surg [Am] 2011; 36: pp. 798-803.
  • 46. Orzel JA, Rudd TG: Heterotopic bone formation: clinical, laboratory, and imaging correlation. J Nucl Med 1985; 26: pp. 125-132.
  • 47. Hastings H, Graham TJ: The classification and treatment of heterotopic ossification about the elbow and forearm. Hand Clin 1994; 10: pp. 417-437. LOE III
  • 48. Thompson HC, Garcia A: Myositis ossificans: aftermath of elbow injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1967; 50: pp. 129-134.
  • 49. Sazbon L, Najenson T, Tartakovsky M, et. al.: Widespread periarticular new-bone formation in long-term comatose patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1981; 63: pp. 120-125.
  • 50. Garland DE, O’Hollaren RM: Fractures and dislocations about the elbow in the head-injured adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982; 168: pp. 38-41.
  • 51. Yang SC, Chen AC, Chao EK, et. al.: Early surgical management for heterotopic ossification about the elbow presenting as limited range of motion associated with ulnar neuropathy. Chang Gung Med J 2002; 25: pp. 245-252.
  • 52. Viola RW, Hastings H: Treatment of ectopic ossification about the elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; 370: pp. 65-86.
  • 53. Burd TA, Lowry KJ, Anglen JO: Indomethacin compared with localized irradiation for the prevention of heterotopic ossification following surgical treatment of acetabular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83: pp. 1783-1788.
  • 54. Strauss JB, Wysocki RW, Shah A, et. al.: Radiation therapy for heterotopic ossification prophylaxis after high-risk elbow surgery. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2011; 40: pp. 400-405.
  • 55. Heyd R, Buhleier T, Zamboglou N: Radiation therapy for prevention of heterotopic ossification about the elbow. Strahlenther Onkol 2009; 185: pp. 506-511.
  • 56. Foruria AM, Augustin S, Morrey BF, et. al.: Heterotopic ossification after surgery for fractures and fracture-dislocations involving the proximal aspect of the radius or ulna. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: pp. e66.
  • 57. Abrams GD, Bellino MJ, Cheung EV: Risk factors for development of heterotopic ossification of the elbow after fracture fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21: pp. 1550-1554.
  • 58. Hamid N, Ashraf N, Bosse MJ, et. al.: Radiation therapy for heterotopic ossification prophylaxis acutely after elbow trauma: a prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92: pp. 2032-2038.
  • 59. Khalfayan EE, Culp RW, Alexander AH: Mason type II radial head fractures: operative versus nonoperative treatment. J Orthop Trauma 1992; 6: pp. 283-289.
  • 60. King GJ, Evans DC, Kellam JF: Open reduction and internal fixation of radial head fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1991; 5: pp. 21-28.
  • 61. Ruchelsman DE, Christoforou D, Jupiter JB: Fractures of the radial head and neck. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: pp. 469-478.
  • 62. Harrington IJ, Sekyi-Otu A, Barrington TW, et. al.: The functional outcome with metallic radial head implants in the treatment of unstable elbow fractures: a long-term review. J Trauma 2001; 50: pp. 46-52.
  • 63. Ha AS, Petscavage JM, Chew FS: Radial head arthroplasty: a radiologic outcome study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: pp. 1078-1082.
  • 64. Chien HY, Chen AC, Huang JW, et. al.: Short- to medium-term outcomes of radial head replacement arthroplasty in posttraumatic unstable elbows: 20 to 70 months follow-up. Chang Gung Med J 2010; 33: pp. 668-678.
  • 65. Chapman CB, Su BW, Sinicropi SM, et. al.: Vitallium radial head prosthesis for acute and chronic elbow fractures and fracture-dislocations involving the radial head. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006; 15: pp. 463-473.
  • 66. Cabenela M, Morrey B: Fractures of the olecranon. Morrey BF The elbow and its disorders . 2000. WB Saunders Philadelphia: pp. 365-379.
  • 67. Boyer MI, Galatz LM, Borrelli J, et. al.: Intra-articular fractures of the upper extremity: new concepts in surgical treatment. Instr Course Lect 2003; 52: pp. 591-605.
  • 68. Gartsman GM, Sculco TP, Otis JC: Operative treatment of olecranon fractures. Excision or open reduction with internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981; 63: pp. 718-721. LOE III
  • 69. Morrey BF, An KN: Stability of the elbow: osseous constraints. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14: pp. 174S-178S.
  • 70. Adams JE, Steinmann SP: The fractures of the olecranon. Celli A Celli L Morrey BF Treatment of elbow lesions: new aspects in diagnosis and surgical techniques . 2008. Springer-Verlag Italia Milan, Italy: pp. 71-81.
  • 71. McKee DE, Lalonde DH, Thoma A, et. al.: Optimal time delay between epinephrine injection and incision to minimize bleeding. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: pp. 811-814.
  • 72. An KN, Morrey BF, Chao EY: The effect of partial removal of proximal ulna on elbow constraint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; 209: pp. 270-279.
  • 73. Bell TH, Ferreira LM, McDonald CP, et. al.: Contribution of the olecranon to elbow stability: an in vitro biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92: pp. 949-957.
  • 74. Didonna ML, Fernandez JJ, Lim TH, et. al.: Partial olecranon excision: the relationship between triceps insertion site and extension strength of the elbow. J Hand Surg [Am] 2003; 28: pp. 117-122.
  • 75. Kamineni S, Hirahara H, Pomianowski S, et. al.: Partial posteromedial olecranon resection: a kinematic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85: pp. 1005-1011.
  • 76. Karlsson MK, Hasserius R, Karlsson C, et. al.: Fractures of the olecranon: a 15- to 25-year followup of 73 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; 403: pp. 205-212. LOE III
  • 77. McKeever F, Buck RM: Fracture of the olecranon process of the ulna; treatment by excision of fragment and repair of triceps tendon. JAMA 1947; 135: pp. 1-5.
  • 78. Doornberg J, Ring D, Jupiter JB: Effective treatment of fracture-dislocations of the olecranon requires a stable trochlear notch. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 429: pp. 292-300.
  • 79. Morrey BF: Current concepts in the treatment of fractures of the radial head, the olecranon, and the coronoid. Instr Course Lect 1995; 44: pp. 175-185.
  • 80. Rommens PM, Schneider RU, Reuter M: Functional results after operative treatment of olecranon fractures. Acta Chir Belg 2004; 104: pp. 191-197.
  • 81. Mullett JH, Shannon F, Noel J, et. al.: K-wire position in tension band wiring of the olecranon—a comparison of two techniques. Injury 2000; 31: pp. 427-431.
  • 82. Kloen P, Buijze GA: Treatment of proximal ulna and olecranon fractures by dorsal plating. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2009; 21: pp. 571-585.
  • 83. Chalidis BE, Sachinis NC, Samoladas EP, et. al.: Is tension band wiring technique the “gold standard” for the treatment of olecranon fractures? A long term functional outcome study. J Orthop Surg Res 2008; 3: pp. 9.
  • 84. Anderson ML, Larson AN, Merten SM, et. al.: Congruent elbow plate fixation of olecranon fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2007; 21: pp. 386-393.
  • 85. Bailey CS, MacDermid J, Patterson SD, et. al.: Outcome of plate fixation of olecranon fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2001; 15: pp. 542-548.
  • 86. Hull JR, Owen JR, Fern SE, et. al.: Role of the coronoid process in varus osteoarticular stability of the elbow. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14: pp. 441-446.
  • 87. Closkey RF, Goode JR, Kirschenbaum D, et. al.: The role of the coronoid process in elbow stability. A biomechanical analysis of axial loading. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82: pp. 1749-1753.
  • 88. Schneeberger AG, Sadowski MM, Jacob HA: Coronoid process and radial head as posterolateral rotatory stabilizers of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: pp. 975-982.
  • 89. Doornberg JN, Ring DC: Fracture of the anteromedial facet of the coronoid process. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: pp. 2216-2224.
  • 90. Adams JE, Hoskin TL, Morrey BF, et. al.: Management and outcome of 103 acute fractures of the coronoid process of the ulna. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: pp. 632-635.
  • 91. Regan W, Morrey B: Fractures of the coronoid process of the ulna. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989; 71: pp. 1348-1354. LOE III
  • 92. O’Driscoll SW, Jupiter JB, Cohen MS, et. al.: Difficult elbow fractures: pearls and pitfalls. Instr Course Lect 2003; 52: pp. 113-134.
  • 93. Steinmann SP: Coronoid process fracture. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008; 16: pp. 519-529.
  • 94. Butler DP, Alsousou J, Keys R: Isolated anterolateral fracture of the coronoid process of the ulna: a case report. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20: pp. e1-e4.
  • 95. Lee DH: Treatment options for complex elbow fracture dislocations. Injury 2001; 32: pp. SD41-SD69.
  • 96. Phillips CS, Segalman KA: Diagnosis and treatment of post-traumatic medial and lateral elbow ligament incompetence. Hand Clin 2002; 18: pp. 149-159.
  • 97. Ring D, Jupiter JB, Sanders RW, et. al.: Transolecranon fracture-dislocation of the elbow. J Orthop Trauma 1997; 11: pp. 545-550.
  • 98. Ring D, Jupiter JB, Zilberfarb J: Posterior dislocation of the elbow with fractures of the radial head and coronoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84: pp. 547-551.
  • 99. Zhao H, Herman B, Adeeb S, et. al.: Investigation of the geometries of the coronoid process and the fibular allograft as a potential surgical replacement. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2013; 28: pp. 626-634.
  • 100. Ring D, Guss D, Jupiter JB: Reconstruction of the coronoid process using a fragment of discarded radial head. J Hand Surg [Am] 2012; 37: pp. 570-574.
  • 101. Alolabi B, Gray A, Ferreira LM, et. al.: Reconstruction of the coronoid using an extended prosthesis: an in vitro biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21: pp. 969-976.
  • 102. Morrey BF, An KN: Articular and ligamentous contributions to the stability of the elbow joint. Am J Sports Med 1983; 11: pp. 315-319.
  • 103. Beingessner DM, Stacpoole RA, Dunning CE, et. al.: The effect of suture fixation of type I coronoid fractures on the kinematics and stability of the elbow with and without medial collateral ligament repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007; 16: pp. 213-217.
  • 104. Roberts PH: Dislocation of the elbow. Br J Surg 1969; 56: pp. 806-815.
  • 105. Linscheid RL, Wheeler DK: Elbow dislocations. JAMA 1965; 194: pp. 1171-1176.
  • 106. Kini MG: Dislocation of the elbow and its complications: a simple technique for excision of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg 1940; 22: pp. 107-117.
  • 107. Duckworth AD, Kulijdian A, McKee MD, et. al.: Residual subluxation of the elbow after dislocation or fracture-dislocation: treatment with active elbow exercises and avoidance of varus stress. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008; 17: pp. 276-280.
  • 108. Pipicelli JG, Chinchalkar SJ, Grewal R, et. al.: Therapeutic implications of the radiographic “drop sign” following elbow dislocation. J Hand Ther 2012; 25: pp. 346-353. quiz 354
  • 109. Safran MR, Baillargeon D: Soft-tissue stabilizers of the elbow. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14: pp. 179S-185S.
  • 110. Morrey BF, An KN: Functional anatomy of the ligaments of the elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; 201: pp. 84-90.
  • 111. Morrey BF, Chao EY, Hui FC: Biomechanical study of the elbow following excision of the radial head. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979; 61: pp. 63-68.
  • 112. Hotchkiss RN, Weiland AJ: Valgus stability of the elbow. J Orthop Res 1987; 5: pp. 372-377.
  • 113. Regan WD, Korinek SL, Morrey BF, et. al.: Biomechanical study of ligaments around the elbow joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; 271: pp. 170-179.
  • 114. Morrey BF, Tanaka S, An KN: Valgus stability of the elbow. A definition of primary and secondary constraints. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; 265: pp. 187-195.
  • 115. Callaway GH, Field LD, Deng XH, et. al.: Biomechanical evaluation of the medial collateral ligament of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79: pp. 1223-1231.
  • 116. O’Driscoll SW, Jaloszynski R, Morrey BF, et. al.: Origin of the medial ulnar collateral ligament. J Hand Surg [Am] 1992; 17: pp. 164-168.
  • 117. O’Driscoll SW, Horii E, Morrey BF, et. al.: Anatomy of the ulnar part of the lateral collateral ligament of the elbow. Clin Anat 1992; 5: pp. 296-303.
  • 118. Olsen BS, Sojbjerg JO, Dalstra M, et. al.: Kinematics of the lateral ligamentous constraints of the elbow joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1996; 5: pp. 333-341.
  • 119. Pugh DM, Wild LM, Schemitsch EH, et. al.: Standard surgical protocol to treat elbow dislocations with radial head and coronoid fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: pp. 1122-1130. LOE III
  • 120. Caldwell JM, Kim HM, Levine WN: Radial nerve injury associated with application of a hinged elbow external fixator: a report of 2 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: pp. e12-e16.
  • 121. Baumann G, Nagy L, Jost B: Radial nerve disruption following application of a hinged elbow external fixator: a report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: pp. e51.
  • 122. Anakwe RE, Middleton SD, Jenkins PJ, et. al.: Patient-reported outcomes after simple dislocation of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: pp. 1220-1226.
  • 123. Josefsson PO, Johnell O, Gentz CF: Long-term sequelae of simple dislocation of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984; 66: pp. 927-930.
  • 124. Josefsson PO, Johnell O, Wendeberg B: Ligamentous injuries in dislocations of the elbow joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 221: pp. 221-225.
  • 125. Josefsson PO, Gentz CF, Johnell O, et. al.: Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of ligamentous injuries following dislocation of the elbow joint. A prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69: pp. 605-608.
  • 126. Mehlhoff TL, Noble PC, Bennett JB, et. al.: Simple dislocation of the elbow in the adult. Results after closed treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988; 70: pp. 244-249.
  • 127. Neviaser JS, Wickstrom JK: Dislocation of the elbow: a retrospective study of 115 patients. South Med J 1977; 70: pp. 172-173.
  • 128. Zwingmann J, Welzel M, Dovi-Akue D, et. al.: Clinical results after different operative treatment methods of radial head and neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcome. Injury 2013; 44: pp. 1540-1550. Epub May 8, 2013
  • 129. Duckworth AD, McQueen MM, Ring D: Fractures of the radial head. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B: pp. 151-159. LOE V
  • Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

    Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

    Jun 11, 2019 | Posted by in ORTHOPEDIC | Comments Off on Trauma to the Adult Elbow and Fractures of the Distal Humerus

    Full access? Get Clinical Tree

    Get Clinical Tree app for offline access