Rotman, Dani

Background This study aimed to validate the concept of notching of the ulna component of the first-generation latitude total elbow prosthesis to reduce the rate of aseptic loosening and improve implant survival. Methods A total of 18 total elbow arthroplasty cases were performed between June 2001 and May 2002 using the latitude first-generation ulnar stem. A total of 14 cases with at least 2 years of follow-up were evaluated following the exclusion of four infected cases. The senior author roughened the stem surface with notches in 10 cases (notched group) to prevent loosening. The effects of notching on implant failure were retrospectively analyzed. Results Average participant age and follow-up were 56 ± 20 years and 72 ± 44 months, respectively. The notched and unnotched implant groups were demographically equivalent. 3/4(75%) of unnotched group implants failed due to aseptic loosening. 1/10(10%) of the notched group implants failed. All unnotched group aseptic loosening cases occurred at the bone–cement interface within 2 years after total elbow arthroplasty. The single patient with aseptic loosening in the notched group had a history of multiple surgeries due to an open fracture preceding the primary total elbow arthroplasty. Discussion Notching of the ulna component of the first-generation latitude total elbow prosthesis reduced the rate of aseptic loosening and improved implant survival. Level of evidence Level IV, retrospective comparative study.

Background: The management of severe radiocapitellar joint pathologies in young patients is challenging. Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is a treatment option in the adult population, but most surgeons avoid implementing it in younger patients, and there are no published results for patients younger than 16 years. Methods: Our retrospective cohort describes 5 patients (4 male 1 female) who underwent cementless modular RHA at an average age of 14 years (range: 13 to 15). The preoperative diagnoses were post-traumatic radiocapitellar incongruity and arthrosis because of previous Salter-Harris type 3 or 4 fractures of the radial head in 3 cases; and axial instability of the forearm following failed radial head excision in 2 cases. Because of the complexity of the elbow pathology in these cases, all underwent concomitant procedures including: contracture release (5 cases), corrective ulnar osteotomy (2 cases), distal ulnar shortening osteotomy, excision of radioulnar synostosis, microfracture of the capitellum, and partial excision of the medial triceps (1 case each). Collected data included patient-reported outcomes, visual analog scale pain score at rest and during physical activity and radiographic assessment of arthritis and prosthesis loosening. Results: Average clinical follow-up was 8 years (range: 3 to 13). All 5 patients were pain-free at rest, and 3 reported moderate elbow pain (visual analog scale: 5 to 6) with physical activity. At an average radiographic follow-up of 3 years (range: 0.5 to 5), 3 patients showed mild progression of elbow arthrosis, but there were no signs of progressive capitellar erosion or implant loosening. Only 1 complication was noted—development of heterotopic ossification in 1 patient, which required open heterotopic ossification excision and contracture release 2 years following the RHA. None of the patients required prosthesis revision or removal. Conclusion: RHA was successful in improving pain and axial forearm stability in this very small series of adolescent patients. Concerns regarding long-term longevity and complications still exist. Considering the lack of other reliable treatment options, RHA may be indicated in this challenging patient population. Level of Evidence: Level IV: therapeutic study—case series.

Purpose To generate an evidence‐based opioid‐prescribing guideline by assessing the pattern of total opioid consumption and the factors that may predict opioid consumption following arthroscopic release of elbow contracture and to investigate whether the use of continuous passive motion (CPM), as compared to physical therapy (PT), was associated with a decrease in pain and opioid consumption after arthroscopic release of elbow contracture. Methods Data collected from a randomized controlled trial that compared continuous passive motion (CPM) ( n = 24) to physical therapy (PT) ( n = 27) following arthroscopic release of elbow contracture was analyzed for opioid use. Fifty‐one participants recorded their daily opioid consumption in a postoperative diary for 90 days. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with opioid use. Recommended quantities for postoperative prescription were generated using the 50th percentile for patients without and the 75th percentile for patients with factors associated with higher opioid use. Results The median total opioid prescription was 437.5‐mg morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) (58 pills of 5 mg oxycodone) and the median total opioid consumption was 75 MMEs (10 pills of 5‐mg oxycodone). Twenty‐two percent of patients took no opioid medication, 53% took ≤10 pills, 69% took ≤20 pills and 75% took ≤30 pills. Predictors of higher opioid use were preoperative opioid use, age <60 years and inflammatory arthritis. The total opioid consumption appeared similar between the CPM and the PT group. Seventy‐five percent of patient’s home opioid requirements would be satisfied using the following guideline: Patients undergoing contracture release for osteoarthritis or post‐traumatic contracture should be given a prescription for 10 pills of 5 mg oxycodone or its equivalent at discharge. Patients with inflammatory conditions or those taking preoperative opioids should be prescribed 30 pills of 5 mg oxycodone or its equivalent. Conclusion This study suggests that most patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture use relatively few opioid pills after surgery. Use of an evidence‐based guideline could decrease opioid prescriptions substantially, while still effectively treating patients’ pain.

Background: There is no consensus how to determine the varus laxity due to the LCL injury using the ultrasonography. There is a risk of lateral collateral ligament injury during or after arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis release for tennis elbow. The equator of the radial head has been suggested as a landmark for the safe zone to not increase this risk; however, the safe zone from the intra-articular space has not been established. Hypothesis: Increased elbow varus laxity due to lateral collateral ligament–capsular complex (LCL-cc) injury could be assessed reliably via ultrasound. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Eight cadaveric elbows were evaluated using a custom-made machine allowing passive elbow flexion under gravity varus stress. The radiocapitellar joint (RCJ) space was measured via ultrasound at 30° and 90° of flexion during 4 stages: intact elbow (stage 0), release of the anterior one-third of the LCL-cc (stage 1), release of the anterior two-thirds (stage 2), and release of the entire LCL-cc (stage 3). Two observers conducted the measurements separately, and the mean RCJ space in the 3 LCL-cc injury models (stages 1-3) at both flexion angles was compared with that of the intact elbow (stage 0). We also compared the measurements at 30° versus 90° of flexion. Results: At 30° of elbow flexion, the RCJ space increased 2 mm between stages 0 and 2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1-3 mm; P < .01) and 4 mm between stages 0 and 3 (95% CI, 2-5 mm; P < .01). At 90° of elbow flexion, the RCJ space increased 1 mm between stages 0 and 2 (95% CI, 1-2 mm; P < .01) and 2 mm between stages 0 and 3 (95% CI, 2-3 mm; P < .01). Conclusion: Elbow varus laxity under gravity stress can be reliably assessed via ultrasound by measuring the RCJ space. Clinical Relevance: Because ultrasonographic measurement of the RCJ space can distinguish the increasing varus laxity seen with release of two-thirds or more of the LCL-cc, the anterior one-third of the LCL-cc, based on the diameter of the radial head, can be considered the safe zone in arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis release for tennis elbow.

Background: Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the capitellum is common in throwing athletes and is believed to result from repetitive overloading on the radiocapitellar (RC) joint, although the cause and mechanism remain unclear. The torsional forces (moments) generated by the triceps during elbow extension pull only on the ulna; therefore, the radial head moves passively across the capitellum and is effectively “dragged along” by the ulna. Any laxity in the proximal radioulnar joint could lead to asynchronous motion between the radius and ulna, resulting in the radial head lagging behind the coronoid and possibly malarticulating with the capitellum during such motion. Hypothesis: Radial head motion on the capitellum lags behind ulnohumeral joint motion during simulated throwing. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 8 cadaveric elbows were tested under simulated throwing, including active extension of the elbow generated by pulling of the triceps under valgus stress, as well as during passive extension under valgus stress to serve as a reference. Ulnohumeral motion was tracked using a video camera. Radial head motion was tracked using an intra-articular, thin-film pressure sensor mounted on the capitellum, and the longitudinal movement of the center of force (COF) of the radial head was measured. Radial head motion was compared between passive and active motion for each 10° of elbow extension from 90° to 20°. Results: Elbow motion during simulated active extension reached an angular velocity of 366 deg/s. Radial head motion during simulated active extension significantly lagged compared with its motion during passive extension at every elbow extension angle examined between 70° and 20° ( P < .001). The maximal lag reached a mean of 4 mm (range, 2-7 mm). In other words, RC and ulnohumeral motion were asynchronous during simulated throwing. Conclusion: This study describes a novel phenomenon: motion of the radial head across the capitellum during rapid extension, such as in baseball pitching, lags behind that seen during passive elbow motion. According to a new proposed theory of OCD lesion development, this lag should result in RC incongruency and elevated shear forces on the capitellum due to edge loading. Clinical Relevance: We propose a new biomechanical explanation for OCD of the capitellum in baseball pitchers: radial head lag. Understanding this process is the first step in efforts to prevent this common injury.

AimsType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) impairs bone strength and is a significant risk factor for hip fracture, yet currently there is no reliable tool to assess this risk. Most risk stratification methods rely on bone mineral density, which is not impaired by diabetes, rendering current tests ineffective. CT-based finite element analysis (CTFEA) calculates the mechanical response of bone to load and uses the yield strain, which is reduced in T2DM patients, to measure bone strength. The purpose of this feasibility study was to examine whether CTFEA could be used to assess the hip fracture risk for T2DM patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was undertaken using autonomous CTFEA performed on existing abdominal or pelvic CT data comparing two groups of T2DM patients: a study group of 27 patients who had sustained a hip fracture within the year following the CT scan and a control group of 24 patients who did not have a hip fracture within one year. The main outcome of the CTFEA is a novel measure of hip bone strength termed the Hip Strength Score (HSS).ResultsThe HSS was significantly lower in the study group (1.76 (SD 0.46)) than in the control group (2.31 (SD 0.74); p = 0.002). A multivariate model showed the odds of having a hip fracture were 17 times greater in patients who had an HSS ≤ 2.2. The CTFEA has a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 76%, and an area under the curve of 0.90.ConclusionThis preliminary study demonstrates the feasibility of using a CTFEA-based bone strength parameter to assess hip fracture risk in a population of T2DM patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1497–1504.