Posterolateral impingement is sometimes diagnosed as a cause of refractory elbow pain, often after other treatments have been tried for common conditions such as lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) or subtly different conditions common in throwing athletes, such as valgus extension overload syndrome. Arthroscopic surgical treatment is effective when targeting abnormal anatomy such as plical folds. Partial excision of the olecranon must be undertaken with caution because it can lead to instability. This systematic review of the current literature uses a narrative synthesis to identify anatomical morphological variations of the olecranon, humeral and capitellar geometry, and overloading of the lateral part of the elbow as causative factors for this condition and discusses how arthroscopic techniques can resolve symptoms. Further understanding of the static and dynamic anatomy of the lateral part of the elbow will help to develop future treatment and preventive strategies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the surgery was to treat an elbow instability caused by critical coronoid bone loss (CCBL), lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) insufficiency,and general hyperlaxity by performing a direct anterior coronoid bone graft (CBG) and LUCL reconstruction in the same setting.
METHODS: In cases with CCBL isolated ligament reconstruction harbors a high failure rate, necessitating supplementary bony procedures. The diagnosis of CCBL is confirmed through lateral radiographs and further quantified through computed tomography (CT) imaging. Objective assessment of instability is conducted with standardized arthroscopic tests. Performing an anterior approach for CBG offers distinct advantages, notably in terms of achieving precise positioning of plates and screws and providing access to the proximal radioulnar joint.
METHODS: Usual contraindications to surgery, coronoid bone loss less than 40%.
METHODS: The surgical procedure is thoroughly illustrated with a video of the operation that can be accessed online: reconstruction of the LUCL with a semitendinosus allograft, harvesting of the graft from the iliac crest, exposure of the coronoid process with a direct anterior approach, freshening up of the graft bed. Temporary fixation of the graft with a Kirschner wire. Assessment of joint congruency, stability and range of motion (ROM) prior to definitive fixation with a 2.4 mm buttress plate and screws.
RESULTS: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) to prevent heterotopic ossification. Elbow mobilization in pronation from day 1 with an overhead motion protocol. Removable splint for 4 weeks, free mobilization at 6 weeks, return to sport at 3 months.
RESULTS: Durable elbow stability was achieved along with free ROM and high patient satisfaction.
UNASSIGNED: OPERATIONSZIEL: Ziel der Operation war die Behandlung einer Ellenbogeninstabilität, die durch einen Knochendefekt des Processus coronoideus, eine Insuffizienz des ulnaren Seitenbandes und eine allgemeine Hyperlaxität verursacht wurde. Diese wurde durch eine direkte anteriore Knochenblocktransplantation des Processus coronoideus und eine Rekonstruktion des ulnaren Seitenbandes behandelt.
UNASSIGNED: Im Falle von Knochenverlust am Processus coronoideus ist eine ligamentäre Rekonstruktion oftmals nicht ausreichend, und ein Knochenblocktransfer ist deshalb erforderlich. Die Diagnose wird durch laterale Röntgenaufnahmen bestätigt und mittels CT-Bildgebung weiter quantifiziert. Die Instabilität wird mithilfe standardisierter arthroskopischer Tests bewertet. Ein direkter vorderer Zugang ermöglicht eine vertikale Bohrrichtung und eine optimale Transplantatposition.
UNASSIGNED: Gewöhnliche Kontraindikationen, Knochenverlust von weniger als 40 %.
UNASSIGNED: Mittels eines online verfügbaren Videos wird der chirurgische Eingriff detailliert beschrieben: Rekonstruktion des ulnaren Seitenbandes mit einem Semitendinosus-Allograft, Knochenentnahme an der Crista iliaca, Exposition des Processus coronoideus, Anfrischung des Transplantatbettes. Temporäre Fixierung des Transplantats mit einem Kirschner-Draht. Überprüfung der Gelenkkongruenz, der Stabilität und des Bewegungsausmaßes vor der finalen Fixierung mit einem 2,4-mm-Abstütz-Plättchen und Schrauben.
UNASSIGNED: Nichtsteroidale Antirheumatika (NSAR) zur Prophylaxe von heterotopen Ossifikationen. Beugung und Streckung ab dem 1. Tag mit einem „Overhead-motion“-Protokoll. Abnehmbare Schiene für 4 Wochen, freie Mobilisierung nach 6 Wochen, Rückkehr zum Sport nach 3 Monaten.
UNASSIGNED: Dauerhafte Stabilität des Ellenbogens ohne Beschwerden und mit hoher Patientenzufriedenheit.

BACKGROUND: Trans-ulnar fracture-dislocations of the elbow are complex injuries that can be difficult to classify and treat. Trans-ulnar basal coronoid injuries, in which the coronoid is not attached to either the olecranon or the metaphysis, present substantial challenges to achieve anatomic reduction and stable internal fixation. The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcome of surgical treatment of trans-ulnar basal coronoid fracture-dislocations.
METHODS: Between 2002 and 2019, 32 consecutive trans-ulnar basal coronoid fracture-dislocations underwent open reduction and internal fixation at our institution. Four elbows were lost to follow-up within the first 6 months after surgery and were excluded. Among the 28 elbows remaining, there were 13 females and 15 males with a mean age of 56 (range 28-78) years at the time of injury. The mean clinical and radiographic follow-up times were 37 months and 29 months, respectively. Radiographs were reviewed to determine rates of union, Hastings and Graham heterotopic ossification (HO) grade, and Broberg and Morrey arthritis grade.
RESULTS: Union occurred in 25 elbows. Union could not be determined for 1 elbow at most recent follow-up and the remaining 2 elbows developed nonunion of the coronoid. Complications occurred in 10 elbows (36%): deep infection (4), ulnar neuropathy (2), elbow contracture (2), and nonunion (2). There were reoperations in 11 elbows (39%): irrigation and débridement with hardware removal (4), hardware removal (2), ulnar nerve transposition (2), contracture release with HO removal (2), and revision with iliac crest autograft (1). At most recent follow-up, the mean flexion-extension arc was 106° (range 10°-150°), and the mean pronation-supination arc was 137° (range 0°-170°). The mean Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 11 (range 0-39) points with a mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation-Elbow score of 81 (range 55-100) points. At final radiographic follow-up, 16 elbows (57%) had HO (8 class I and 8 class II), and 20 elbows (71%) had arthritis (8 grade 1, 6 grade 2, and 6 grade 3).
CONCLUSIONS: Trans-ulnar basal coronoid fracture-dislocations are severe injuries associated with high rates of reoperation, HO, and post-traumatic arthritis. However, the majority of elbows achieve union, a functional range of motion, and reasonable patient reported outcome measures. Over the study period, surgeons were more likely to utilize multiple deep approaches and separate fixation of the coronoid (either with lag screws or anteromedial plates) to ensure anatomic reduction.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic elbow instability (subluxation and dislocation) represents a challenging clinical entity that can be complicated by persistent intraoperative instability after attempted stabilization or recurrent postoperative instability. Both static and dynamic supplemental stabilization procedures have been described for cases where fracture fixation and ligament repair fail to restore stability. There is a paucity of prior studies involving ulnohumeral cross-pinning (UCP), which is a type of static supplemental stabilization. Our purpose was to assess complications and outcomes after UCP.
METHODS: We reviewed all surgical cases involving primary and revision UCP for traumatic elbow instability at a single center from 2017-2023. Baseline demographics were recorded. Outcomes including radiographs, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures, and surgical complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Fourteen patients undergoing UCP were included with a mean follow-up of 27 months. Five cross-pinnings (36%) were performed during revision procedures. Mean visual analog scale (VAS) pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores were 2.4, 34, and 69, respectively. The mean flexion-extension and pronation-supination arcs were 114° and 140°, with 85% achieving at least a 100° arc for flexion and forearm rotation. Five patients (36%) had complications, all of which required reoperation. Two complications involved postoperative instability: one radial head subluxation and one radial head dislocation. Both occurred in revision UCP cases indicated for recurrent postoperative instability.
CONCLUSIONS: Ulnohumeral cross-pinning for persistent and recurrent elbow instability results in maintained ulnohumeral joint alignment, functional arcs of elbow range of motion, and acceptable patient-reported outcome measures, particularly in the setting of a primary procedure indicated for persistent intraoperative instability. Ulnohumeral cross-pinning is a reasonable supplemental stabilization procedure for complex elbow instability.
METHODS: Therapeutic IV.

OBJECTIVE: Classification systems and treatment for children with radial longitudinal deficiency are classically focused on the hand and wrist. However, the elbow can affect the function of these patients secondary to stiffness or instability. The objective of this study was to determine if a correlation exists between severity of radial longitudinal deficiency (RLD) and degree of proximal ulnar hypoplasia.
METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed at a pediatric hospital. One hundred elbows were identified in 72 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Measurements such as the coronoid height, olecranon coronoid angle (OCA), and the anterior coverage index were obtained from lateral radiographs of children with RLD. Ten elbows had posterior subluxation of the ulnohumeral joint radiographically. Eleven patients had thrombocytopenia absent radius (TAR) syndrome.
RESULTS: There was a significant mean difference for OCA between RLD types. Type 4 RLD (mean [M] = 17.9; standard deviation [SD] = 11.3) had a significantly lower OCA than type 0 (M = 26.4; SD = 5.9) and type 1 (M = 31.0; SD = 5.0). A subanalysis of the 58 elbows with type 4 RLD demonstrated that those with TAR (n = 11) had significantly higher anterior coverage index total scores (M = 1.7; SD = 0.3) than those with type 4 without TAR (M = 1.5; SD = 0.2).
CONCLUSIONS: The degree of proximal ulnar hypoplasia is correlated with increasing severity of RLD, with significantly lower OCA and coronoid height observed in the elbow radiographs of patients with type 4 RLD compared with type 0 and type 1. Children with TAR have less proximal ulnar dysplasia and higher anterior coverage index than children with type 4 RLD without associated TAR.
METHODS: Prognostic IV.

Fractures of the coronoid process typically occur as part of more complex injury patterns, such as terrible triads, trans-olecranon fracture-dislocations, posteromedial rotatory injuries or Monteggia-like lesions. Each pattern is associated with a specific type of coronoid fracture with regard to shape and size and specific soft-tissue lesions. O\' Driscoll classification incorporates those associations identifying three major types of fractures: tip, anteromedial facet, and basal fractures. The objective of this study is to review the most common types of complex elbow instability, identify the indications for coronoid fixation and guide the appropriate management. Tip fractures as those seen in terrible triads can conditionally left untreated provided that elbow stability has been restored after radial head fixation and ligaments repair. Anteromedial facet fractures benefit from a buttress plate, while large basilar fractures can be effectively secured with posteroanterior screws. Coronoid reconstruction with a graft should be considered in post-traumatic cases of chronic coronoid deficiency.

UNASSIGNED: Despite surgical reestablishment of the supporting structures, instability may often persist in traumatic elbow injury. In these cases, a temporary internal or external fixator may be indicated to unload the repaired structures and maintain joint concentricity. Aggregate data are needed to characterize the risk of complication between external fixation (ExFix) and the internal joint stabilizer (IJS) when used for traumatic elbow instability. Our objective was to review the literature to compare the complication profile between external fixation and the IJS.
UNASSIGNED: A database query was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome characteristics for eligibility were the following: for patients over 18 years clinical outcomes were compared between an ExFix or the IJS for acute or chronic elbow instability. The Cochran risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions and grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation framework were compiled for risk of bias and quality assessment.
UNASSIGNED: The rate of recurrent instability was 4.1% in the IJS group (N = 171) and 7.0% in the ExFix group (N = 435), with an odds ratio of 1.93 (95% confidence interval 0.88-4.23). The rate of device failure was 4.4% in the IJS group and 4.1% in the ExFix group. Pin-related complications occurred in 14.6% of ExFix cases. Complications in the IJS group were the following: 1 case of inflammatory reaction, 4 cases of post removal surgical site infection, and 5 symptomatic removals.
UNASSIGNED: The literature demonstrates a distinct difference in complication profile between external fixation and the IJS when used as treatment for traumatic elbow instability. Although not statistically significant, the higher rate of recurrent instability following external fixation may be clinically important. The high rate of pin-related complications with external fixation is notable.

A combination of osteotomy and ligament reconstruction is recommended for posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) with large cubitus varus deformities. There is a lack of reports regarding ligament donor selection for ligament reconstruction of PLRI with cubitus varus. Two cases of PLRI with cubitus varus have been described. In case one, a 40-year-old woman presented with left elbow pain. She had a cubitus varus deformity, resulting from a childhood elbow fracture. Radiographs showed an 18-degree cubitus varus deformity. A lateral closing wedge osteotomy and double plate osteosynthesis were performed. The lateral collateral ligament (LCL) was reconstructed with autologous triceps fascia. Postoperative radiographs confirmed correction with 10 degrees of the carrying angle (CA). Bone union at the osteotomy site occurred six months later with excellent results. In case two, a 45-year-old man presented an arm with persistent right elbow instability with cubitus varus deformity. This was due to a childhood supracondylar fracture of the right humerus. Radiographs showed a cubitus varus deformity of 25 degrees on the right. The surgical procedure included a lateral wedge osteotomy, double plate fixation, and LCL reconstruction with autologous triceps fascia. Postoperative radiographs confirmed a corrected CA of 5 degrees. Bone union was achieved at the six-month follow-up with satisfactory results. The use of triceps fascia for LCL reconstruction for PLRI due to cubitus varus would provide a minimally invasive and reasonable treatment option.

The management of residual elbow instability is challenging in both acute and chronic injuries. Among the available devices, the hinged external fixator provides an additional joint stabilization while allowing an early motion, but it is clumsy and associated to high rate of pin track complications. To address these issues, an internal joint stabilizer (IJS) has been recently developed. An easier recreation of the axis of rotation coupled to the reduced lever arm of the hinge is the root of the consistent and satisfactory results thus far observed. In addition, the device is more comfortable for the patients being an internal stabilizer. Nonetheless, a second surgery for the device removal is necessary, of which the timing is still not standardized. This current concepts paper describes literature regarding outcomes of the IJS focusing on the rate of maintained radiographic joint reduction, the resultant range of motion, and the associated complication profile.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment concepts for simple elbow dislocation involve conservative and surgical approaches. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the superiority of one treatment strategy over the other by a qualitative analysis in adult patients who suffered simple elbow luxation.
METHODS: A systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and following the suggestions for reporting on qualitative summaries was performed. A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus, including variations and combinations of the following keywords: elbow, radiohumeral, ulnohumeral, radioulnar, luxation, and therapy. Seventeen studies that performed a randomized controlled trial to compare treatment strategies as conservative or surgical procedures were included. Reviews are not selected for further qualitative analysis. The following outcome parameters were compared: range of motion (ROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand outcome measure (Quick-DASH), recurrent instability, pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS) and time to return to work (RW).
RESULTS: Early mobilization after conservative treatment strategies showed improved ROM compared to immobilization for up to 3 weeks after surgery with less extension deficit in the early mobilization group (16° ± 13°. vs. 19.5° ± 3°, p < 0.05), as well as excellent clinical outcome scores. Surgical approaches showed similar results compared to conservative treatment, leading to improved ROM (115 vs. 118 ± 2.8) and MEPS: 95 ± 7 vs. 92 ± 4.
CONCLUSIONS: Conservative treatment with early functional training of the elbow remains the first-line therapy for simple elbow dislocation. The surgical procedure provides similar outcomes compared to conservative treatment regarding MEPS and ROM for patients with slight initial instability in physical examination and radiographs. People with red flags for persistent instability, such as severe bilateral ligament injuries and moderate to severe instability during initial physical examination, should be considered for a primary surgical approach to prevent recurrent posterolateral and valgus instability. Postoperative early mobilization and early mobilization for conservatively treated patients is beneficial to improve patient outcome and ROM.