| Literature DB >> 29290538 |
Shu-Kun He1, Min Yi2, Gang Zhong3, Shi-Qiang Cen4, Jia-Lei Chen5, Fu-Guo Huang6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the optimal timing for the resection of heterotopic ossification (HO) of the elbow.Entities:
Keywords: Elbow; Heterotopic ossification; Timing of excision; Trauma
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29290538 PMCID: PMC6136303 DOI: 10.1016/j.aott.2017.11.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc ISSN: 1017-995X Impact factor: 1.511
Comparison of patient clinical characteristics.
| Variable | Early excision group (n = 17) | Late excision group (n = 25) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender, n | .731 | ||
| Male | 13 | 17 | |
| Female | 4 | 8 | |
| Age, average (range), y | 37 (20–63) | 36 (17–62) | .800 |
| Involvement of dominant elbow, n | .531 | ||
| Yes | 8 | 15 | |
| No | 9 | 10 | |
| Type of injury, n | .146 | ||
| Distal humeral fracture | 4 | 12 | |
| Proximal radial or ulnar fracture | 7 | 10 | |
| Elbow dislocation/fracture-dislocation | 6 | 3 | |
| Location of heterotopic ossification, n | .951 | ||
| Medial | 3 | 3 | |
| Lateral | 2 | 4 | |
| Anterior | 13 | 18 | |
| Posterior | 14 | 19 | |
| Surgical approach, n | .329 | ||
| Medial and lateral approaches | 14 | 13 | |
| Medial approach | 2 | 4 | |
| Lateral approach | 1 | 5 | |
| Anterior approach | 0 | 1 | |
| Posterior approach | 0 | 2 | |
| Initial treatment, n | .374 | ||
| Nonoperative | 1 | 5 | |
| Operative | 16 | 20 | |
| Time to index surgery, average (range), mo | 7.4 (3–11) | 33.5 (12–240) | .010 |
| Follow-up time, average (range), mo | 42 (16–63) | 33 (12–65) | .067 |
| Postoperative complications | 3 | 4 | .888 |
| Recurrence of heterotopic ossification | 4 | 6 | .972 |
Comparison of preoperative and postoperative ROMa and MEPS.b
| Variable | Early excision group | Late excision group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative | |||
| Flexion,° | 63 (10–100) | 81 (5–120) | .045 |
| Flexion contracture,° | 47 (5–90) | 45 (0–95) | .818 |
| Total arc of motion,° | 16 (0–70) | 35 (0–90) | .013 |
| Postoperative | |||
| Flexion,° | 114 (50–135) | 112 (80–135) | .682 |
| Flexion contracture,° | 16 (0–50) | 19 (0–70) | .587 |
| Total arc of motion,° | 98 (20–125) | 93 (50–130) | .556 |
| Improvement | |||
| Flexion,° | 51 (−5–105) | 31 (0–105) | .042 |
| Flexion contracture,° | −31 (−70 to 0) | −26 (−80 to 10) | .576 |
| Total arc of motion,° | 82 (15–120) | 57 (0–120) | .024 |
| MEPS | |||
| Preoperative | 37 (20–55) | 47 (20–70) | .027 |
| Postoperative | 91 (60–100) | 85 (55–100) | .187 |
| Improvement | 54 (15–80) | 38 (15–80) | .001 |
ROM, range of motion.
MEPS, Mayo elbow Performance Score.
All measurements are presented as average (range).
Improvement of Flexion contracture needs to have the “–” sign convention consistent with comments in the Abstract, Methods, and Results sections.
Patients with postoperative complications.
| Patient | Sex | Complication | Preoperative ROM,° | Final follow-up ROM,° | Time to index surgery, mo | Prophylaxis of HO | Reoperation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Male | Symptomatic recurrence of HO | 25 | 120 | 24 | Indomethacin | Yes |
| 2 | Male | Symptomatic recurrence of HO | 15 | 50 | 10 | Indomethacin | No |
| 3 | Male | Symptomatic recurrence of HO | 75 | 100 | 48 | Indomethacin | No |
| 4 | Male | Ulnar nerve symptom | 10 | 120 | 8 | Indomethacin | No |
| 5 | Male | Infection | 10 | 130 | 36 | Indomethacin | Yes |
| 6 | Male | Infection | 0 | 60 | 22 | Indomethacin | Yes |
| 7 | Male | Elbow instability | 10 | 95 | 6 | Indomethacin | Yes |
ROM is measured after the second operation.
Indomethacin was also used for HO prophylaxis after the second operation.