Daniel R. Bachman

The effect of prosthetic radial head geometry on the distribution and magnitude of radiocapitellar joint contact pressures.

PURPOSE To determine if radiocapitellar contact pressures would be elevated with nonanatomical (circular) prostheses over those mimicking native anatomy and if such pressures would be related to the depth and contour of the articular dish and to the pattern of prosthetic articulation against the lateral trochlear ridge. METHODS Three commercially available circular radial head designs were compared with an anatomical radial head and 2 modified anatomical prototype radial head designs in 10 cadaveric specimens. Each prosthesis and specimen combination was loaded in neutral rotation and maximal extension with a custom testing apparatus while measuring contact areas and pressures using thin-film pressure sensors. RESULTS Anatomical radial head prototype 2 had similar radiocapitellar contact areas and mean pressures as the native radial head; all other designs showed significant decreases in contact area and increased mean pressures. Peak contact pressures were also measured and were significantly elevated with all prostheses tested. Anatomical designs are statistically more likely to mimic normal contact with the lateral trochlear ridge and its adjacent sulcus than circular prostheses. They are also significantly less likely to have contact pressures above the 5 MPa threshold that is thought to be harmful to cartilage. The depth of the articular dish had a significant effect on contact area and pressure. CONCLUSIONS Commercially available radial head prostheses demonstrated reduced radiocapitellar contact areas and elevated contact pressures during compressive loading. These were significantly greater with symmetrical circular prostheses than with asymmetrical elliptical designs. The prosthesis that best mimicked native contact behavior was the anatomical radial head prototype 2 owing to its design for articulating with the capitellum, the lateral trochlear ridge, and the sulcus between. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Because radial head prostheses have the potential to cause capitellar erosion or arthritic change, those with lower contact pressures may lead to fewer such complications.

Role of the lateral collateral ligament in posteromedial rotatory instability of the elbow

BACKGROUND Posteromedial rotatory instability (PMRI) of the elbow consists of an anteromedial coronoid fracture with lateral collateral ligament (LCL) and posterior bundle of the medial collateral ligament (PMCL) tears. We hypothesized that the LCL tear is required for elbow subluxation/joint incongruity and that an elbow affected by an anteromedial subtype 2 coronoid fracture and a PMCL tear exhibits contact pressures different from both an intact elbow and an elbow affected by PMRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS Six cadaveric elbows were tested under gravity varus stress using a custom-made machine designed to simulate muscle loads and to passively flex the elbow from 0° to 90° and measure joint contact pressures. After testing of the intact specimen (INTACT-elbow), an anteromedial subtype 2 coronoid fracture with a PMCL tear (COR+PMCL-elbow) and a PMRI injury (PMRI-elbow), after adding an LCL tear, were tested. The highest values of mean contact pressure were used for the comparison among the 3 groups. RESULTS Neither subluxation nor joint incongruity was observed in the COR+PMCL-elbow. The addition of an LCL detachment consistently caused subluxation and joint incongruity. Mean contact pressures were higher in the COR+PMCL-elbow compared with the INTACT-elbow (P < .03) but lower than in the PMRI-elbow (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS The LCL lesion in PMRI is necessary for elbow subluxation and causes marked elevations in contact pressures. Even without subluxation, the COR+PMCL-elbow showed higher contact pressures compared with the INTACT-elbow. Treatment of PMRI should be directed toward prevention of joint incongruity, whether by surgical or nonsurgical means, to prevent high articular contact pressures.

The Safety of Using Proximal Anteromedial Portals in Elbow Arthroscopy With Prior Ulnar Nerve Transposition

PURPOSE To report the safety of using the proximal anteromedial portal, using a simplified ulnar nerve management strategy derived from an earlier study, in a series of patients with previously transposed ulnar nerves. METHODS A retrospective review of all elbow arthroscopies performed by a single surgeon from 2009 to 2014 was performed. The following techniques were used if, by palpation, localization of the ulnar nerve was considered to be certain (group 1) or uncertain (group 2): In group 1 (certain) the proximal anteromedial portal was established in the normal antegrade fashion. In group 2 (uncertain) a 1- to 3-cm incision was made at the planned proximal anteromedial portal site, and blunt dissection down to the capsule was performed without identification of the nerve. The nerve was not visualized but sometimes was palpated through the wound to confirm its location anteriorly or posteriorly. If there was a disparity between the prior operative records and the physical examination findings, the nerve was explored through a 3- to 4-cm incision. RESULTS We reviewed 394 elbow arthroscopy cases, 22 of which had a prior transposed ulnar nerve (21 subcutaneous and 1 submuscular) that required anterior-compartment arthroscopic surgery. Group 1 (certain location) consisted of 9 elbows (41%), whereas group 2 (uncertain location) consisted of 13 (59%). In 2 cases in group 2, the ulnar nerve was explored because of the disparity between the previous medical records and the physical examination findings. There were no operative ulnar nerve injuries related to the use of the proximal anteromedial portal. CONCLUSIONS The proximal anteromedial portal was able to be used safely in patients with prior transposition of the ulnar nerve. This was achieved by using an algorithm based on the degree of certainty with which the nerve can be localized in the region of the planned portal by clinical palpation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Coronoid reconstruction using osteochondral grafts: a biomechanical study

HYPOTHESIS The purposes of this study were to test the hypothesis that coronoid deficiency in the setting of posteromedial rotatory instability (PMRI) must be reconstructed to restore articular contact pressures to normal and to compare 3 different osteochondral grafts for this purpose. METHODS After creation of a anteromedial fracture, six cadaveric elbows were tested under gravity varus stress using a custom-made machine designed to simulate muscle loads and to passively flex the elbow. Mean articular surface contact pressure data were collected and processed using TekScan sensors and software. After testing of the intact specimen (intact condition), a PMRI injury was created (PMRI condition). Testing was repeated after reconstruction of the lateral collateral ligament (LCL) (LCL-only condition), followed by reconstruction of the coronoid with 3 different osteochondral graft techniques (reconstructed conditions). RESULTS Contact pressure was consistently significantly higher in the PMRI elbow compared with the intact, LCL-only, and reconstructed conditions (P < .006). The LCL-only elbow contact pressure was significantly higher than that of the intact and reconstructed conditions from 5° to 55° of flexion (P = .018). The contact pressure of the intact elbow was never significantly different from that of the reconstructed elbow, except at 5° of flexion (P ≤ .008). No significant difference was detected between each of the reconstructed techniques (P ≥ .15). However, the annular surface of the radial head was the only graft that yielded contact pressures not significantly different from normal at any flexion angle. CONCLUSION Isolated reconstruction of the LCL did not restore native articular surface contact pressure, and reconstruction of the coronoid using osteochondral graft was necessary. There was no difference in contact pressures among the 3 coronoid reconstruction techniques.

Letter Regarding “Radiocapitellar Joint Contact Pressures Following Radial Head Arthroplasty”

flexion strength, and our study also demonstrated no difference between patients whose BR was released or preserved in terms of elbow flexion strength. Consequently, we believe that although the BR is repaired after release, this cannot provide more elbow flexion strength than an intact BR. Third, the author stated that BR repair is required for repair of the pronator quadratus (PQ). However, it is difficult to repair the PQ at the radial septum of the radius despite BR repair, because the muscle fascia of the PQ is not strong enough to hold sutures. In addition, some studies have shown that PQ repair after volar plate fixation of DRF provided no functional advantage in terms of wrist range of motion, grip strength, and Disabilities of the Hand, Arm, and Shoulder score and visual analog score at 1 year. The author also mentioned that PQ repair is necessary to prevent flexor tendon complications after volar plate fixation of DRF; however, this is not supported by published evidence. Although we usually do not repair the PQ, we have rarely encountered flexor tendon complications. On the other hand, those who routinely repair the PQ still report flexor tendon complications. Based on a literature review, we believe that flexor tendon complications after volar plate fixation of DRF are not related to PQ repair, but rather to plate position and prominence. It is reasonable for the author to be concerned regarding nonrepair of the BR after its release during volar plate fixation of DRF, because the need for such repair remains debatable. We hope that further biomechanical studies and randomized clinical trials will address and resolve this issue.

Effects of axial forearm instability on force transmission across the elbow

BACKGROUND The interosseous membrane (IOM) and distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) provide axial stability to the forearm. Our hypothesis was that injury to these structures alters force transmission through the elbow. METHODS A custom-designed apparatus that applies axial loads from the wrist to the elbow was used to test 10 cadaveric upper limbs under the following simulated conditions (1) intact, (2) DRUJ injury, (3) IOM injury, or (4) IOM + DRUJ injury. IOM injury was simulated by osteotomies of the IOM attachment to the radius, and DRUJ injury was simulated by distal ulnar oblique osteotomy. We applied 160 N of axial force during cyclic and functional range of forearm rotation (40o pronation/40o supination), and force, contact pressure, and contact area through the elbow joint were measured simultaneously. RESULTS The force across the radiocapitellar joint was significantly higher in the IOM + DRUJ injury and the IOM injury groups than in the intact and DRUJ injury groups. The mean force across the radiocapitellar joint was not significantly different between the intact and DRUJ injury groups or between the IOM + DRUJ injury and the IOM injury groups. Forces across the ulnohumeral joint showed an inverse pattern to those in the radiocapitellar joint. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that injury to the IOM contributes more to the disruption of the normal distribution of axial loads across the elbow than injury to the DRUJ.

Axial load transmission through the elbow during forearm rotation

BACKGROUND Forearm rotation is closely associated with the axiorotational force transmission through the elbow joint. A technique has been developed to study the transmission of force across the radiocapitellar and ulnotrochlear joints during forearm rotation. METHODS Ten human cadaveric upper limbs were prepared on a custom-designed apparatus that permits the application of extrinsic axial loads across an intact cadaveric elbow joint. A force-sensitive transducer was inserted into the elbow joint of each cadaver. A 160 N axial force was applied to the specimen during cyclic forearm rotation while the force, contact pressure, and contact area through the elbow joint were measured. RESULTS The mean force across the radiocapitellar joint showed no significant difference between pronation and supination (P = .3547). The radiocapitellar joint showed significantly higher contact area (P = .0001) and lower contact pressure (P = .0001) in pronation than in supination. The mean values for contact pressure, area, and force across the ulnotrochlear joint were not significantly different between supination and pronation. CONCLUSION The contact pressure and contact area of the radiocapitellar joint in the cadaveric model changed according to forearm rotation while the force remained constant. The mean contact pressure of the radiocapitellar joint in pronation was significantly lower than that in supination because the force across it did not change significantly and its contact area decreased significantly. These findings may suggest that the pronated elbow can play an important role in protecting the radiocapitellar joint in high-impact activities like delivering punch in martial arts or falling on an outstretched arm.