Comparison of two surgical approaches used in elbow arthrolysis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-7600.2010.06.011
- VernacularTitle:两种手术入路在肘关节松解术中应用的比较
- Author:
Yejun ZHA
;
Xieyuan JIANG
;
Manyi WANG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Elbow joint;
Surgical procedures,operative;
Case-control studies;
Elbow stiffness
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2010;12(6):542-547
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the posterior midline approach and the combined lateral and medial approach usually used in elbow arthrolysis. Methods From January to December in 2009, 41 cases of elbow stiffness were treated and fully followed up by the same team in our hospital. The posterior midline approach was used in 21 cases, 15 males and 6 females, with an average age of 35.8 years (16 to 70 years). In this group, the total flexion-extension arc was ＜ 30° in 12 cases, 31° to 60° in 7 cases, and 61° to 90° in 2 cases. Eight cases had ulnar symptoms. The combined lateral and medial approach was applied in 20 cases, 8 males and 12 females, with an average age of 38. 8 years (16 to 51 years). In this group, the total flexion-extension arc was ＜ 30° in 11 cases, 31° to 60° in 7 cases, and 61° to 90° in 2 cases. Five cases had ulnar symptoms. Results The 41 cases were followed up for 4 to 15 months (average, 7.9 months). In the posterior approach group, the mean preoperative flexion-extension ROM (27.6°± 25.7°) was improved to the postoperative 111.4°± 25.6°, the mean preoperative rotation ROM ( 152.9°± 46. 9°) to the postoperative 168.1°± 19. 1°, and the mean preoperative MEPS score (65.5 ± 11.5) to the postoperative 95.7 ±6.4. In the combined approach group, the mean flexion-extension ROM was improved from 35.5°± 25.0° preoperatively to 116. 5°± 19.1° postoperatively, the mean rotation ROM from 138.0°±55.7° preoperatively to 148.5°± 45.6° postoperatively, and the mean MEPS score from 66. 3 ± 13.0 preoperatively to 97.3 ± 7.0 postoperatively. The differences were statistically significant between preoperation and postoperation in both groups ( P ＜ 0. 05), but not statistically different between the 2 groups in the preoperative or postoperative values ( P ＞ 0. 05). In the posterior approach group, 5 patients had huge hematoma, 3 had wound dehiscence at the posterior elbow, and the others all had mild hematoma. But in the combined approach group, no wound complications were noted. Conclusion The combined lateral and medial approach should be used as far as possible in the elbow arthrolysis to avoid the likely complications when the posterior midline approach is used.
