| Literature DB >> 35360939 |
Weixuan Liu1,2, Ziyang Sun1,2, Hao Xiong1,2, Junjian Liu3, Jiuzhou Lu4, Bin Cai5, Wei Wang1,2, Cunyi Fan1,2.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to develop and internally validate a prognostic nomogram to predict the probability of gaining a functional range of motion (ROM ≥ 120°) after open arthrolysis of the elbow in patients with post-traumatic stiffness of the elbow.Entities:
Keywords: Elbow; Nomogram; Nomograms; Open arthrolysis; Post-traumatic elbow stiffness; Prediction model; Predictors; Range of motion; arthrolysis; clinical outcome; clinicians; elbow; elbow stiffness; open arthrolysis; post-traumatic osteoarthritis; post-traumatic stiffness; stiffness
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35360939 PMCID: PMC9020519 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B4.BJJ-2021-1326.R2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bone Joint J ISSN: 2049-4394 Impact factor: 5.385
Fig. 1Flow diagram for patient selection and enrolment.
Fig. 2The management of tethers and blocks in open elbow arthrolysis. a) Posterior tether release: contracted triceps pie-crusting technique. Multiple stab incisions are made in the triceps tendon in the medial-to-lateral and distal-to-proximal directions. b) Removal of an anterior block: radiograph shows anterior heterotopic ossification (HO). An irregularly shaped HO (*) originating from the distal humerus can be seen anteriorly. All figures are used with permission of the owner. All rights reserved (Sun et al. Bone Jt Open. 2020;1(8):576 to 584).
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients.
| Functional ROM of ≥ 120° | Yes (n = 355) | No (n = 196) | Total (n = 551) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| |||
| < 18 | 26 (7.3) | 15 (7.7) | 41 (7.4) |
| 18 to 54 | 315 (88.7) | 168 (85.7) | 483 (87.7) |
| ≥ 55 | 14 (3.9) | 13 (6.6) | 27 (4.9) |
|
| |||
| Male | 225 (63.4) | 133 (67.9) | 358 (65.0) |
| Female | 130 (36.6) | 63 (32.1) | 193 (35.0) |
|
| |||
| Underweight, < 18.5 | 46 (13.0) | 17 (8.7) | 63 (11.4) |
| Normal, 18.5 to 23.9 | 193 (54.4) | 93 (47.4) | 286 (51.9) |
| Overweight, 24 to 27.9 | 99 (27.9) | 73 (37.2) | 172 (31.2) |
| Obese, ≥ 28 | 17 (4.8) | 13 (6.6) | 30 (5.4) |
|
| |||
| No | 246 (69.3) | 127 (64.8) | 373 (67.7) |
| Yes | 109 (30.7) | 69 (35.2) | 178 (32.3) |
|
| |||
| No | 239 (67.3) | 124 (63.3) | 363 (65.9) |
| Yes | 116 (32.7) | 72 (36.7) | 188 (34.1) |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| No | 154 (43.4) | 87 (44.4) | 241 (43.7) |
| Yes | 201 (56.6) | 109 (55.6) | 310 (56.3) |
|
| |||
| Simple fracture/dislocation | 250 (70.4) | 134 (68.4) | 384 (69.7) |
| Complex fracture/dislocation | 105 (29.6) | 62 (31.6) | 167 (30.3) |
|
| |||
| Conservative | 70 (19.7) | 35 (17.9) | 105 (19.1) |
| Operative | 285 (80.3) | 161 (82.1) | 446 (80.9) |
|
| |||
| 6 to 10 | 84 (23.7) | 37 (18.9) | 121 (22.0) |
| 11 to 20 | 195 (54.9) | 104 (53.1) | 299 (54.3) |
| > 20 | 76 (21.4) | 55 (28.1) | 131 (23.8) |
|
| |||
| 0 | 303 (85.4) | 168 (85.7) | 471 (85.5) |
| 1 | 44 (12.4) | 23 (11.7) | 67 (12.2) |
| ≥ 2 | 8 (2.3) | 5 (2.6) | 13 (2.4) |
|
| |||
| < 30 | 85 (23.9) | 92 (46.9) | 177 (32.1) |
| 30 to 59 | 146 (41.1) | 66 (33.7) | 212 (38.5) |
| 60 to 89 | 107 (30.1) | 35 (17.9) | 142 (25.8) |
| ≥ 90 | 17 (4.8) | 3 (1.5) | 20 (3.6) |
|
| |||
| No (None and I) | 80 (22.5) | 41 (20.9) | 121 (22.0) |
| II | 254 (71.5) | 125 (63.8) | 379 (68.8) |
| III | 21 (5.9) | 30 (15.3) | 51 (9.3) |
|
| |||
| None | 218 (61.4) | 107 (54.6) | 325 (59.0) |
| Mild | 107 (30.1) | 57 (29.1) | 164 (29.8) |
| Moderate and severe | 30 (8.5) | 32 (16.3) | 62 (11.3) |
|
| |||
| Stable | 327 (92.1) | 180 (91.8) | 507 (92.0) |
| Moderate | 24 (6.8) | 13 (6.6) | 37 (6.7) |
| Severe | 4 (1.1) | 3 (1.5) | 7 (1.3) |
|
| |||
| None | 253 (71.3) | 147 (75.0) | 400 (72.6) |
| I | 68 (19.2) | 30 (15.3) | 98 (17.8) |
| II | 21 (5.9) | 12 (6.1) | 33 (6.0) |
| III | 13 (3.7) | 7 (3.6) | 20 (3.6) |
|
| |||
| None | 189 (53.2) | 65 (33.2) | 254 (46.1) |
| I | 105 (29.6) | 64 (32.7) | 169 (30.7) |
| II | 44 (12.4) | 33 (16.8) | 77 (14.0) |
| III | 17 (4.8) | 34 (17.3) | 51 (9.3) |
Classified according to the Chinese BMI criteria of the Working Group on Obesity in China.
Classified according to Mansat classification, by ROM: > 90°, mild; 60° to 90°, moderate; 30° to 60°, severe; < 30°, extremely severe.
Classified according to Hastings and Graham classification: I, no functional limitation; IIA, limited flexo-extension; IIB, limited prono-supination; IIC, IIA combined with IIB; III, ankylosis.
Classified according to VAS for pain: none (0); mild (1 to 3); moderate (4 to 6); severe (7 to 10).
Classified according to the Dellon classification, including sensory (paresthaesia, vibratory perception, and two-point discrimination) and motor symptoms (muscle weakness and atrophy).
Classified according to Broberg and Morrey classification (grade 0, normal joint; grade 1, slight joint-space narrowing with minimum osteophyte formation; grade 2, moderate joint-space narrowing with moderate osteophyte formation; and grade 3, severe degenerative change with gross destruction of the joint).
HO, heterotopic ossification; OA, osteoarthritis; ROM, range of motion; VAS, visual analogue scale.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis incorporating predictive features for functional range of motion after open elbow arthrolysis in patients with post-traumatic stiffness of the elbow.
| Variable | β | Odds ratio (95% CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1.282 | 3.606 (1.684 to 8.048) | 0.001 |
|
| |||
| Underweight | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Normal | -0.314 | 0.731 (0.369 to 1.396) | 0.354 |
| Overweight | -0.638 | 0.528 (0.260 to 1.040) | 0.070 |
| Obese | -0.916 | 0.400 (0.147 to 1.086) | 0.071 |
|
| |||
| 6 to 10 | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| 11 to 20 | -0.356 | 0.701 (0.424 to 1.141) | 0.158 |
| > 20 | -0.509 | 0.601 (0.339 to 1.057) | 0.079 |
|
| |||
| < 30 | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| 30 to 59 | 0.862 | 2.369 (1.531 to 3.689) | < 0.001 |
| 60 to 89 | 1.104 | 3.015 (1.824 to 5.062) | < 0.001 |
| ≥ 90 | 2.097 | 8.144 (2.295 to 40.288) | 0.003 |
|
| |||
| None | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Mild | -0.051 | 0.950 (0.618 to 1.468) | 0.817 |
| Moderate and severe | -0.993 | 0.370 (0.201 to 0.678) | 0.001 |
|
| |||
| None | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Grade 1 | -0.621 | 0.537 (0.344 to 0.836) | 0.006 |
| Grade 2 | -0.728 | 0.483 (0.274 to 0.853) | 0.012 |
| Grade 3 | -1.630 | 0.196 (0.098 to 0.381) | < 0.001 |
CI, confidence interval; OA, osteoarthritis; ROM, range of motion.
Fig. 3The developed prognostic nomogram: Shanghai Prediction Model for Elbow Stiffness Surgical Outcome (SPESSO). a) SPESSO was developed incorporating BMI, duration of stiffness, preoperative range of motion (ROM), preoperative pain intensity, and grade of osteoarthritis (OA) of the elbow. b) This example shows the probability of gaining a functional ROM (≥ 120°) after open elbow arthrolysis in a patient with post-traumatic stiffness of the elbow presenting with a BMI of 23 kg/m2, duration of stiffness of 18 months, baseline ROM of 40°, mild pain, and no sign of OA of the elbow.
Fig. 4Calibration curve of the nomogram prediction in the cohort. The diagonal dotted line represents a perfect prediction by an ideal model. The solid line represents the performance of this nomogram, of which a closer fit to the diagonal dotted line represents a better prediction. The calibration curve of the nomogram showed a good fit. ROM, range of motion.