Sánchez‐Sotelo, Joaquín

Abstract In recent years, arthroscopy has gained popularity as a preferred treatment of a multitude of pathologies affecting the elbow. Since its initial description in 1985, many modifications have been made as our knowledge and technology have advanced. Currently, the majority of arthroscopic procedures are performed in either the lateral decubitus or supine suspended position. In this work, we discuss the history, patient positioning, and key steps for performing elbow arthroscopy in the lateral decubitus position. In addition to key steps, a number of strengths and limitations of this set up are discussed in detail. When properly executed, elbow arthroscopy can be performed in a safe and efficient manner with minimal risk to patients. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Prosthetic replacement of the elbow joint has continued to improve over time. Widespread implantation of certain designs has led to identification a few successful elements of elbow arthroplasty, as well as several opportunities for improvement. Current hot topics in elbow arthroplasty include triceps-preserving exposures, implantation of components with better-expected wear performance, management of the ulnar nerve, prevention of infection, and the development of successful cementless components. Total elbow arthroplasty has the potential to improve pain, function and quality of life for many patients with articular destruction secondary to inflammatory arthropathy or as a consequence of trauma. Continued advances in this field are key to make this operation as reliable and lasting as hip or knee arthroplasty.

Background: Elbow arthroplasty is the treatment of choice for end-stage rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term outcome of a linked semiconstrained elbow arthroplasty implant design in patients with RA. Methods: Between 1982 and 2006, 461 primary total elbow arthroplasties using the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis were performed in 387 patients with RA. Fifty-five of the arthroplasties were performed to treat concurrent traumatic or posttraumatic conditions. There were 305 women (365 elbows, 79%) and 82 men (96 elbows, 21%). Ten patients (10 elbows) were lost to follow-up, 9 patients (10 elbows) died, and 6 patients (6 elbows) underwent revision surgery within the first 2 years. For the 435 elbows (362 patients, 94%) with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, the median follow-up was 10 years (range, 2 to 30 years). Results: At the most recent follow-up, 49 (11%) of the elbows had undergone component revision or removal (deep infection, 10 elbows; and mechanical failure, 39 elbows). Eight additional elbows were considered to have radiographic evidence of loosening. For surviving implants followed for a minimum of 2 years, the median Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 90 points. Bushing wear was identified in 71 (23%) of the surviving elbows with a minimum of 2 years of radiographic follow-up; however, only 2% of the elbows had been revised for isolated bushing wear. The rate of survivorship free of implant revision or removal for any reason was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 88% to 94%) at 10 years, 83% (95% CI = 77% to 88%) at 15 years, and 68% (95% CI = 56% to 78%) at 20 years. The survivorship at 20 years was 88% (95% CI = 83% to 92%) with revision due to aseptic loosening as the end point and 89% (95% CI = 77% to 95%) with isolated bushing exchange as the end point. Risk factors for implant revision for any cause included male sex, a history of concomitant traumatic pathology, and implantation of an ulnar component with a polymethylmethacrylate surface finish. Conclusions: Elbow arthroplasty using a cemented linked semiconstrained elbow arthroplasty provides satisfactory clinical results in the treatment of RA with a reasonable rate of survivorship free of mechanical failure at 20 years. Although bushing wear was identified on radiographs in approximately one-fourth of the patients, revision for isolated bushing wear was uncommon. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: This study investigated whether axillary nerve (AN) distance to the inferior border of the humeral head and inferior glenoid would change while placing the glenohumeral joint in different degrees of external rotation and abduction. Methods: A standard deltopectoral approach was performed on 10 fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens. The distance between AN and the inferior border of the humeral head and inferior glenoid while placing the shoulder in 0°, 45°, and 90° of external rotation or abduction was measured. Continuous variables for changes in AN position were compared with paired 2-tailed Student t test. Results: The mean distance between the AN and the humeral head with the shoulder in 0°, 45°, and 90° of external rotation and 0° of abduction was 13.77 mm (SD 4.31), 13.99 mm (SD 4.12), and 16.28 mm (SD 5.40), respectively. The mean distance between the AN and glenoid with the shoulder in 0°, 45°, and 90° of external rotation was 16.33 mm (SD 3.60), 15.60 mm (SD 4.19), and 16.43 (SD 5.35), respectively. The mean distance between the AN and the humeral head with the shoulder in 0°, 45°, and 90° of abduction and 0° of external rotation was 13.76 mm (SD 4.31), 10.68 mm (SD 4.19), and 3.81 mm (SD 3.08), respectively. The mean distance between the AN and glenoid with the shoulder in 0°, 45°, and 90° of abduction was 16.33 mm (SD 3.60), 17.66 mm (SD 5.80), and 12.44 mm (SD 5.57), respectively. Conclusions: The AN position relative to the inferior aspect of the glenohumeral joint does not significantly change despite position of external rotation. Increasing shoulder abduction over 45° decreases the distance from the glenohumeral joint to the AN and should be avoided.

Abstract Distal biceps tendon (DBT) conditions comprise a spectrum of disorders including bicipitoradial bursitis, partial tears, acute and chronic complete tears. In low-demand patients with complete DBT tears, non-operative treatment may be entertained provided the patient understands the potential for residual weakness, particularly in forearm supination. Most acute tears are best treated by primary repair using either single-incision or double-incision techniques with good clinical outcomes. Single-incision techniques may carry a higher risk of nerve-related complications, whereas double-incision techniques have historically been considered to carry a higher risk of heterotopic ossification, particularly if the ulna is exposed. Various fixation techniques, including bone tunnels, cortical buttons, suture anchors, interference screws or a combination seem to provide different fixation strength but similar clinical outcomes. Some chronic tears may be repaired primarily, provided tendon tissue can be identified; alternatively, autograft or allograft reconstruction can be considered, and good outcomes have been reported with both techniques. Cite this article: Alentorn-Geli E, Assenmacher AT, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Distal biceps tendon injuries: a clinically relevant current concepts review. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:316-324. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000053.

AimsWe describe the use of a protocol of irrigation and debridement (I& D) with retention of the implant for the treatment of periprosthetic infection of a total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). This may be an attractive alternative to staged re-implantation.Patients and MethodsBetween 1990 and 2010, 23 consecutive patients were treated in this way. Three were lost to follow-up leaving 20 patients (21 TEAs) in the study. There were six men and 14 women. Their mean age was 58 years (23 to 76). The protocol involved: component unlinking, irrigation and debridement (I& D), and the introduction of antibiotic laden cement beads; organism-specific intravenous antibiotics; repeat I& D and re-linkage of the implant if appropriate; long-term oral antibiotic therapy.ResultsThe mean follow-up was 7.1 years (2 to 16). The infecting micro-organisms were Staphylococcus aureus in nine, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in 13, Corynebacterium in three and other in six cases. Re-operations included three repeat staged I& Ds, two repeat superficial I& Ds and one fasciocutaneous forearm flap. One patient required removal of the implant due to persistent infection. All except three patients rated their pain as absent or mild. Outcome was rated as good or excellent in 15 patients (mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score 78 points, (5 to 100) with a mean flexion-extension arc of 103° (40° to 150°)).ConclusionA staged protocol can be successful in retaining stable components of an infected TEA. Function of the elbow may compare unfavourably to that after an uncomplicated TEA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:976–83.

Abstract There are three main patterns of complex elbow instability: posterolateral (terrible triad), varus posteromedial (anteromedial coronoid fracture with lateral collateral ligament complex disruption), and trans-olecranon fracture dislocations. Radial head fractures, in the setting of complex elbow instability, often require internal fixation or arthroplasty; the outcome of radial head replacement is dictated by adequate selection of the head diameter, correct restoration of radial length, and proper alignment and tracking. Small coronoid fractures can be ignored. Larger coronoid fractures, especially those involving the anteromedial facet, require fixation or graft reconstruction, particularly in the presence of incongruity. The lateral collateral ligament complex should be repaired whenever disrupted. Medial collateral ligament disruptions seem to heal reliably without surgical repair provided all other involved structures are addressed. The most common mistakes in the management of trans-olecranon fracture dislocations are suboptimal fixation, lack of fixation of coronoid fragments, and lack of restoration of the natural dorsal angulation of the ulna. Cite this article: Sanchez-Sotelo J, Morrey M. Complex elbow instability. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:183-190.

Abstract The reported rate of complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) seems to be higher than the complication rate of anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. The reported overall complication rate of primary RSA is approximately 15%; when RSA is used in the revision setting, the complication rate may approach 40%. The most common complications of RSA include instability, infection, notching, loosening, nerve injury, acromial and scapular spine fractures, intra-operative fractures and component disengagement. Careful attention to implant design and surgical technique, including implantation of components in the correct version and height, selection of the best glenosphere-humeral bearing match, avoidance of impingement, and adequate management of the soft tissues will hopefully translate in a decreasing number of complications in the future. Cite this article: Barco R, Savvidou OD, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Cofield RH. Complications in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:72-80. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160003.