Multicenter trial of an internal joint stabilizer for the elbow

Orbay, Jorge L.; Ring, David; Kachooei, Amir Reza; Santiago-Figueroa, José; Bolano, Luis E.; Pirela-Cruz, Miguel A.; Hausman, Michael R.; Papandrea, Rick F.

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.023

Cited by 48 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1; 2; 4; 7 Previous studies have shown that patients were able to attain an average range of motion between of 124-134⁰ using an IJS device; 1; 2; 7 compared to an average range of motion of 104.5⁰ (Range: 85-146⁰ ) in cases using an external hinged device. 2 The reported average for postoperative DASH scores ranged from 16 -37.3 in a few small case series, 2; 4; 7 compared to an 85.3 reported average for a preoperative DASH score in 1 study. 7 Complications reported following IJS fixation include one case of a sterile inflammatory reaction, five cases of median or ulnar nerve palsy, one case of mal-reduction, one case of hardware failure, two cases of infection, one case of a superficial wound hematoma, one case of pain over the implant site, 2 cases of contracture formation and one case of heterotopic bone formation after a terrible triad injury.…”

Section: Postop Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Posterior Approach for IJS Insertion adhered to these guidelines and saw satisfactory results with no complications noted during the second operation. 2 However, in another study, these devices were left in place and only removed due to either complications or patient preference (6/20 devices removed). This study also achieved significant improvement in elbow range of motion and function.…”

Section: J O U R N a L P R E -P R O O Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Posterior approach to the elbow for insertion of the internal joint stabilizer

Gonzalez

Carter

Castagno

et al. 2022

JSES Reviews, Reports, and Techniques

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

Section: Postop Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: J O U R N a L P R E -P R O O Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Posterior approach to the elbow for insertion of the internal joint stabilizer

Gonzalez

Carter

Castagno

et al. 2022

JSES Reviews, Reports, and Techniques

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding management of the LCL complex, which is another essential reconstructive step in this protocol, the evidence agrees on the necessity of LCL recovery, by either retensioning (reattachment) or reconstruction [4, 8]. Some surgeons believe that reconstruction with a tendon graft is the only way to restore LCL function, even with dislocation or subluxation for as little as 2 weeks [8, 18, 31]. However, some studies have reported that attempts to ensure stability with ligament reconstruction might result in unacceptable loss of motion [1].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does an Internal Joint Stabilizer and Standardized Protocol Prevent Recurrent Instability in Complex Persistent Elbow Instability?

Hsueh

et al. 2022

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The treatment of complex persistent elbow instability after trauma is challenging. Previous studies on treatments have reported varied surgical techniques, which makes it difficult to establish a therapeutic algorithm. Furthermore, the surgical procedures may not sufficiently restore elbow stability, even with an additional device, and a noted high rate of arthritis progression.While a recently developed internal joint stabilizer effectively treats elbow instability, its clinical application for complex persistent elbow instability is limited and the standardized protocol is not well described. Additionally, we want to know whether the arthritis progression will cause a negative impact on the functional outcomes of complex persistent elbow instability. Questions/purposes (1) Does treatment of complex persistent elbow instability with a hinged internal joint stabilizer and a standardized protocol prevent recurrent instability and other complications? (2) What are the pre-to postoperative improvements in pain, disability, elbow performance, and ROM? (3) Is the development of posttraumatic arthritis associated with worse pain, disability, elbow performance, and ROM? Methods Between September 2014 and October 2019, we treated 22 patients for persistent dislocation or subluxation after initial treatment of traumatic elbow fracturedislocations. Of those, we considered patients who were at least 20 years of age, with an interval of 6 weeks or more between the injury (initial treatment) and the index reconstructive procedure, which had been performed at our institute, as potentially eligible. During that time, we used an internal joint stabilizer with a standardized protocol for posttraumatic complex persistent elbow instability. We performed total elbow replacements in patients older than 50 years who had advanced elbow arthritis. Based on that, 82% (18 of 22) of patients were eligible; 14% (3 of 22) were excluded because total elbow replacements was undertaken, and another 5% (1 of 22) were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 1 year (median 24 monthsThe study was funded by E-Da Hospital, Taiwan (EDAHP108035). Each author certifies that there are no outside funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from (E-Da Hospital)

show abstract

“…17 Since then, studies have shown favorable functional outcome scores with lower complication rates compared with HEF. In a subsequent series of 24 patients with persistent or recurrent elbow J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f instability, Orbay et al 18 concluded that IJS is as effective as external fixation at reproducing concentric elbow reduction. At the same time, their series displayed lower rates of persistent subluxation, heterotopic ossification, and ulnar neuropathy compared to HEF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%