Search for other papers by Huub H. de Klerk in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Chantal L. Welsink in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anne J. Spaans in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Lukas P. E. Verweij in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Michel P. J. van den Bekerom in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the elbow can cause disabling symptoms of pain, locking, stiffness, and a limitation in the range of motion. There is no consensus regarding the role of open and arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of symptomatic primary elbow OA. The aim of this study is to systematically review the outcome of surgical debridement. A preoperative/postoperative comparison will be made between the two surgical procedures.
-
All studies reporting on debridement as treatment for primary elbow OA with a minimum of one-year follow-up were included. Outcome parameters were functional results, complications, and performance scores.
-
Data were extracted from 21 articles. The arthroscopic group consisted of 286 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 40 ± 17 months (range, 16–75). The open group consisted of 300 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 55 ± 20 months (range, 19–85). Both procedures showed improvement in Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range of motion (ROM) flexion-extension, and ROM pronation-supination. Only in ROM flexion was a statistically significant difference in improvement seen between the groups in favour of the open group. The arthroscopic group showed improvement in pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Nothing could be stated about pain VAS scores in the open group due to a lack of data. In the arthroscopic group 18 complications (6%) were described, in the open group 29 complications (12%).
-
Surgical debridement is an effective treatment for the disabling symptoms of primary elbow OA with an acceptable complication rate.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:874-882. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190095
Sport Traumatology and Biomechanics Unit, Rehasport Clinic, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
Search for other papers by Jakub Stefaniak in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Przemyslaw Lubiatowski in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anna Maria Kubicka in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anna Wawrzyniak in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Joanna Wałecka in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Leszek Romanowski in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
The coexistence of glenoid and humeral head bone defects may increase the risk of recurrence of instability after soft tissue repair.
-
Revealed factors in medical history such as male gender, younger age of dislocation, an increasing number of dislocations, contact sports, and manual work or epilepsy may increase the recurrence rate of instability.
-
In physical examination, positive bony apprehension test, catching and crepitations in shoulder movement may suggest osseous deficiency.
-
Anteroposterior and axial views allow for the detection of particular bony lesions in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability.
-
Computed Tomography (CT) with multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) and various types of 3D rendering in 2D (quasi-3D-CT) and 3D (true-3D-CT) space allows not only detection of glenoid and humeral bone defects but most of all their quantification and relations (engaging/not-engaging and on-track/off-track) in the context of bipolar lesion.
-
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly developing and can provide an equally accurate measurement tool for bone assessment, avoiding radiation exposure for the patient.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:815-827. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200049
Search for other papers by Peter Ström in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Glenoid fractures of the shoulder are uncommon.
-
Any scapular fracture involving the glenoid should be scrutinized carefully for a surgical treatment option.
-
Classification is helpful in deciding the surgical tactic.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:620-623. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190057
Rehasport Clinic, Poznań, Poland
Department of Traumatology, Orthopaedics and Hand Surgery, University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
Search for other papers by Przemysław Lubiatowski in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Rehasport Clinic, Poznań, Poland
Department of Traumatology, Orthopaedics and Hand Surgery, University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
Search for other papers by Joanna Wałecka in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marcin Dzianach in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Rehasport Clinic, Poznań, Poland
Department of Traumatology, Orthopaedics and Hand Surgery, University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland
Search for other papers by Jakub Stefaniak in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Leszek Romanowski in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
A synovial plica (fold) is normal anatomic finding, and occurs in 86–100% of cases; however, symptomatic plica is much less common (7.2–8.7% of all elbow arthroscopies).
-
Synovial plica syndrome is a painful elbow condition related to symptomatic synovial plica.
-
Synovial plica syndrome is diagnosed by clinical examination (lateral elbow pain) commonly accompanied by local tenderness, pain at terminal extension and/or painful snapping.
-
Synovial plica syndrome may be mimicked by other elbow conditions, commonly tennis elbow, loose bodies, and degenerative arthritis.
-
Magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound scan may support diagnosis in correlation with clinical findings, but symptomatic plica may also be diagnosed as unexpected during elbow arthroscopy.
-
The arthroscopic resection is effective and safe if conservative treatment fails.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:549-557. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200027
Search for other papers by Patrick Goetti in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Patrick J. Denard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Philippe Collin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mohamed Ibrahim in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre Hoffmeyer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Alexandre Lädermann in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
The stability of the glenohumeral joint depends on soft tissue stabilizers, bone morphology and dynamic stabilizers such as the rotator cuff and long head of the biceps tendon. Shoulder stabilization techniques include anatomic procedures such as repair of the labrum or restoration of bone loss, but also non-anatomic options such as remplissage or tendon transfers.
-
Rotator cuff repair should restore the cuff anatomy, reattach the rotator cable and respect the coracoacromial arch whenever possible. Tendon transfer, superior capsular reconstruction or balloon implantation have been proposed for irreparable lesions.
-
Shoulder rehabilitation should focus on restoring balanced glenohumeral and scapular force couples in order to avoid an upward migration of the humeral head and secondary cuff impingement. The primary goal of cuff repair is to be as anatomic as possible and to create a biomechanically favourable environment for tendon healing.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:508-518. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200006
Search for other papers by Olga D. Savvidou in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Panagiotis Koutsouradis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Angelos Kaspiris in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Leon Naar in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by George D. Chloros in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Panayiotis J. Papagelopoulos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Operative treatment with tension band wiring or plate is the gold standard of care for displaced olecranon fractures.
-
In elderly patients, multiple comorbidities combine with increased intraoperative risks, and postoperative complications may yield poor results.
-
There are small series in the literature that show promising results with non-operative treatment.
-
Non-operative treatment may provide reasonable function and satisfaction in the elderly population and could be considered as a treatment option in this group, especially for those with comorbidities, to avoid postoperative complications and the need for re-operation.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:391-397. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190041
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Izaäk F. Kodde in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jetske Viveen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bertram The in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Roger P. van Riet in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Denise Eygendaal in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Primary radial head arthroplasty (RHA) produces good or excellent results in approximately 85% of patients. However, complications are not uncommon and have been described in up to 23% of cases.
-
The number of RHA is increasing, and consequently the absolute number of complications is expected to rise as well. The decision on whether to revise or remove the prosthesis seems more likely to depend on the preference of the surgeon or the hospital, rather than on objectifying problems with the prosthesis.
-
The current article presents an algorithm for the work-up and treatment of most complications that can occur following RHA.
-
Five subgroups of problems were identified: osteoarthritis, stiffness, instability, infection and implant-related issues.
-
In short, the preferred treatment depends mainly on the chondral condition and stability of the elbow joint.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:398-407. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190055
Search for other papers by Frédéric Vauclair in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Patrick Goetti in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ngoc Tram V. Nguyen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Despite recent improvements in surgical implants and techniques, distal humerus nonunion does occur between 8% and 25% of the time.
-
Careful identification and improvement of any modifiable risk factors such as smoking, metabolic disorders, immunosuppressant medications, poor nutritional status and infection is mandatory.
-
A recent computed tomography scan is paramount to determine the nonunion pattern, assess residual bone stock, identify previously placed hardware, and determine whether there is evidence of osteoarthritis or malunion of the articular surface.
-
Internal fixation is the treatment of choice in the majority of patients presenting with reasonable bone stock and preserved articular cartilage; total elbow arthroplasty is an appealing alternative for elbows with severe destruction of the articular cartilage or severe bone loss at the articular segment, especially in older, female patients. Internal fixation requires not only achieving a stable fixation, but also releasing associated elbow contractures and the liberal use of bone graft or substitutes.
-
Although reported union rates after internal fixation of distal humerus nonunions are excellent (over 95%), the complication rate remains very high, and unsatisfactory results do occur.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:289-298. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190050
Search for other papers by Sophie Abrassart in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Franck Kolo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sébastian Piotton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Joe Chih-Hao Chiu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Patrick Stirling in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre Hoffmeyer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Alexandre Lädermann in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Frozen shoulder, a common and debilitating shoulder complaint, has been the subject of uncertainty within the scientific literature and clinical practice.
-
We performed an electronic PubMed search on all (1559) articles mentioning ‘frozen shoulder’ or ‘adhesive capsulitis’ to understand and qualify the range of naming, classification and natural history of the disease. We identified and reviewed six key thought leadership papers published in the past 10 years and all (24) systematic reviews published on frozen shoulder or adhesive capsulitis in the past five years.
-
This revealed that, while key thought leaders such as the ISAKOS Upper Extremity Council are unequivocal that ‘adhesive capsulitis’ is an inappropriate term, the long-term and short-term trends showed the literature (63% of systematic reviews assessed) preferred ‘adhesive capsulitis’.
-
The literature was divided as to whether or not to classify the complaint as primary only (9 of 24) or primary and secondary (9 of 24); six did not touch on classification.
-
Furthermore, despite a systematic review in 2016 showing no evidence to support a three-phase self-limiting progression of frozen shoulder, 11 of 12 (92%) systematic reviews that mentioned phasing described a three-phase progression. Eight (33%) described it as ‘self-limiting’, three (13%) described it as self-limiting in ‘nearly all’ or ‘most’ cases, and six (25%) stated that it was not self-limiting; seven (29%) did not touch on disease resolution.
-
We call for a data and patient-oriented approach to the classification and description of the natural history of the disease, and recommend authors and clinicians (1) use the term ‘frozen shoulder’ over ‘adhesive capsulitis’, (2) use an updated definition of the disease which recognizes the often severe pain suffered, and (3) avoid the confusing and potentially harmful repetition of the natural history of the disease as a three-phase, self-limiting condition.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:273-279.DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190032
Search for other papers by Arno A. Macken in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ante Prkic in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Izaäk F. Kodde in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jonathan Lans in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Neal C. Chen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Denise Eygendaal in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
National registries provide useful information in understanding outcomes of surgeries that have late sequelae, especially for rare operations such as total elbow arthroplasty (TEA).
-
A systematic search was performed and data were compiled from the registries to compare total elbow arthroplasty outcomes and evaluate trends. We included six registries from Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and Sweden.
-
Inflammatory arthritis was the most common indication for total elbow arthroplasty, followed by acute fracture and osteoarthritis. When comparing 2000–2009 to 2010–2017 data, total elbow arthroplasty for inflammatory arthritis decreased and total elbow arthroplasty for fracture and osteoarthritis increased. There was an increase in the number of revision TEAs over this time period.
-
The range of indications for total elbow arthroplasty is broadening; total elbow arthroplasty for acute trauma and osteoarthritis is becoming increasingly more common. However, inflammatory arthritis remains the most common indication in recent years. This change is accompanied by an increase in the incidence of revision surgery.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:215-220. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190036
