| Literature DB >> 29375261 |
Roberto Yukio Ikemoto1,2, Joel Murachovsky1, Rogério Serpone Bueno1, Luis Gustavo Prata Nascimento1, Adriano Bordini Carmargo1, Vitor Elias Corrêa1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the functional and radiographic results of patients who underwent surgical treatment for terrible triad-type elbow injuries (TTE).Entities:
Keywords: Elbow joint/physiopathology; Elbow joint/surgery; Joint dislocations; Treatment outcome
Year: 2017 PMID: 29375261 PMCID: PMC5782865 DOI: 10.1590/1413-785220172506168821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Ortop Bras ISSN: 1413-7852 Impact factor: 0.513
Figure 1Patient occupations at time of trauma.
Percent of patients who returned to work, and average time of leave.
| Return to work | Time (months) | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 13 (72%) | 7.84 |
| No | 5 (28%) | 19 |
Treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 45 | M | Dup | LAT-MED | 2 | Prosthesis | BIP | 2 | Trans | Trans | Trans | No | No | No |
|
| 46 | M | Uni | LAT | 3 | Rafi | 1 | No | No | No | No | No | No | |
|
| 33 | M | Uni | LAT | 4 | Prosthesis | UNI | 1 | No | Anc | No | Yes | Kirsch W | No |
|
| 46 | M | Uni | LAT | 4 | Prosthesis | UNI | 1 | No | Trans | No | No | No | No |
|
| 36 | M | Dup | LAT-MED | 2 | Ressec | 1 | No | Trans | Trans | No | No | No | |
|
| 64 | F | Post | LAT | 2 | Rafi | 1 | No | Trans | No | No | No | No | |
|
| 49 | M | Uni | LAT | 4 | Prosthesis | UNI | 1 | No | Trans | No | No | Kirsch W | No |
|
| 18 | F | Uni | LAT | 2 | Rafi | 1 | No | Trans | No | No | No | No | |
|
| 32 | F | Uni | LAT | 3 | Prosthesis | BIP | 2 | Anc | Trans | No | No | No | No |
|
| 28 | M | Uni | LAT | 4 | Prosthesis | BIP | 1 | No | Trans | No | No | No | No |
|
| 32 | M | Dup | LAT-MED | 2 | Prosthesis | UNI | 2 | Anc | Anc | Trans | No | Kirsch W | No |
|
| 48 | M | Uni | LAT | 4 | Prosthesis | UNI | 1 | No | Anc | No | No | No | No |
|
| 55 | M | Post | LAT-MED | 4 | Prosthesis | UNI | 3 | No | Trans | No | Yes | No | Vasc |
|
| 29 | M | Uni | LAT | 2 | Rafi | 1 | No | Trans | No | No | No | No | |
|
| 35 | M | Uni | LAT | 2 | Rafi | 1 | No | Trans | No | No | No | No | |
|
| 34 | M | Uni | LAT | 1 | Rafi | 1 | No | Trans | No | No | No | No | |
|
| 40 | M | Uni | LAT | 1 | Rafi | 1 | No | Trans | No | No | No | No | |
|
| 33 | M | Dup | LAT-MED | 4 | Prosthesis | UNI | 3 | Rafi | Anc | Anc | No | No | No |
|
| 45 | F | Uni | LAT | 3 | Rafi | 1 | No | Anc | No | No | No | No | |
|
| 27 | M | Uni | LAT | 2 | Rafi | 1 | No | Trans | No | No | No | No | |
|
| Dup | LAT-MED | 2 | Rafi | 1 | Trans | Trans | Trans | No | No | No |
Notes: VIA: access route used in surgery; DUP: double access; RH: radial head fracture classification; TT RH: radial head fracture treatment; PROT: type of prosthesis used in cases of radial head arthroplasty was used; UNI: unipolar/non-modular; BIP: bipolar/modular; RM: Reagan-Morrey classification for coronoid fractures; TT RM treatment used for coronoid fractures; LLC: treatment of lateral collateral ligament complex; MLC: treatment of medial collateral ligament complex; ART EF: articulated external fixator; DRUJ: distal radioulnar joint injury; OTHER: other associated injuries. Note: patient 20 had bilateral injury (R: right, L: left).
Results.
| EXT | FLE | MFE | PRO | SUP | MPS | PSH | VRI | VGI | DASH | MEPS | BMR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -70 | 90 | 20 | 30 | 30 | 60 | No | No | No | 14.6 | 85 | 3 |
| 2 | -15 | 135 | 120 | 50 | 70 | 120 | No | No | No | 7.5 | 85 | 1 |
| 3 | -30 | 115 | 85 | 20 | 15 | 35 | No | No | Yes | 5 | 95 | 1 |
| 4 | -5 | 140 | 135 | 90 | 90 | 180 | No | No | No | 0 | 100 | 1 |
| 5 | -5 | 140 | 135 | 50 | 50 | 100 | No | No | No | 11.3 | 100 | 2 |
| 6 | -20 | 90 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | No | No | 9.1 | 85 | 2 |
| 7 | -30 | 90 | 60 | -40 | 40 | 0 | No | No | No | 48.3 | 80 | 2 |
| 8 | -20 | 140 | 120 | 90 | 80 | 170 | No | No | No | 0.8 | 100 | 2 |
| 9 | 0 | 140 | 140 | 90 | 90 | 180 | No | No | No | 0.8 | 100 | 1 |
| 10 | 0 | 140 | 140 | 90 | 70 | 130 | No | No | No | 0 | 85 | 2 |
| 11 | -30 | 110 | 80 | 30 | 80 | 110 | No | No | No | 39 | 60 | 2 |
| 12 | -5 | 145 | 140 | 60 | 90 | 150 | No | No | No | 5.8 | 100 | 1 |
| 13 | -30 | 120 | 90 | 10 | 80 | 90 | Yes | No | Yes | 11.6 | 75 | 4 |
| 14 | -50 | 120 | 70 | 55 | 75 | 130 | No | No | Yes | 30.8 | 55 | 3 |
| 15 | -15 | 110 | 95 | 30 | 80 | 110 | No | No | No | 8.3 | 80 | 1 |
| 16 | -20 | 120 | 100 | 60 | 70 | 130 | No | No | No | 10 | 85 | 2 |
| 17 | -10 | 140 | 130 | 80 | 80 | 160 | No | No | No | 3.33 | 100 | 1 |
| 18 | -40 | 100 | 60 | 40 | 40 | 80 | No | No | No | 31.6 | 60 | 1 |
| 19 | -40 | 140 | 100 | 70 | 45 | 115 | No | Yes | No | 15 | 80 | 3 |
| 20R | -5 | 135 | 130 | 90 | 90 | 180 | No | No | Yes | 23.5 | 80 | 2 |
| 20L | -10 | 130 | 120 | 50 | 90 | 140 | No | No | Yes | 3 |
Notes: EXT: extension; FLE: flexion; MFE: mean flexion-extension; PRO: pronation; SUP: supination; MPS: mean pronation-supination; PSH: pivot-shift test; VRI: varus instability; VGI: valgus instability; DASH: DASH score; MEPS: MEPS score; BMR: Broberg-Morrey classification.
TTE articles.
| Year | N | FE ROM | PS ROM | DASH | MEPS | HO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current study | 21 | 101 | 112.85 | 14.27 | 84 | 8 | |
| Chen et al. | 2015 | 12 | 125 | 126 | |||
| Gonçalves et al. | 2014 | 26 | 112 | 133 | 12 | 87 | |
| Naoki Miyazaki et al. | 2014 | 15 | 115 | 132 | |||
| Papatheodoru et al. | 2014 | 14 | 123 | 145 | 14 | 1 | |
| Fitzgibbons et al. | 2014 | 11 | 112 | 153 | 19.7 | ||
| Garrigues et al. | 2011 | 40 | 115 | 16 | |||
| Zeiders et al. | 2008 | 32 | 100 | 23 | |||
| Forthman et al. | 2007 | 22 | 117 | 137 | |||
| Pugh et al. | 2004 | 36 | 112 | 136 | 88 |
Notes: N: number of patients evaluated; FE ROM: mean flexion-extension range of motion, in degrees; PS ROM: mean pronation-supination range of motion, in degrees; DASH: DASH score; MEPS: MEPS score; HO: patients with heterotopic ossification.