肘关节后外侧尺侧副韧带(LUCL)重建失败和持续后外侧旋转不稳定(PLRI)后手术翻修:一项回顾性多中心分析。

IF 1.4 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Sebastian Lappen, Sebastian Siebenlist, Christian Schoch, Hans-Jörg Bülow, Boris Hollinger, Klaus Burkhart J, Stephanie Geyer
{"title":"肘关节后外侧尺侧副韧带(LUCL)重建失败和持续后外侧旋转不稳定(PLRI)后手术翻修:一项回顾性多中心分析。","authors":"Sebastian Lappen, Sebastian Siebenlist, Christian Schoch, Hans-Jörg Bülow, Boris Hollinger, Klaus Burkhart J, Stephanie Geyer","doi":"10.1007/s00590-025-04201-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to identify causes for recurrent PLRI, compare surgical treatment options, and analyze functional outcomes following revision LUCL reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective multicentric case analysis was conducted, including patients who underwent revision LUCL surgery due to recurrent PLRI. Demographic data, surgical techniques (for primary and revision LUCL reconstruction) and postoperative rehabilitation protocols were analyzed, and causes of failure documented. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 37 patients with a mean age of 44.3 years (± 12.3) and a median follow-up of 40.9 months (interquartile range, 20.5-77.0) with revision LUCL surgery were included. Recurrent instability was mainly attributed to graft insufficiency or loosening (59.5%) and rupture of the humeral graft (37.8%). Failure of humeral fixation occurred in 48.7% of cases, often due to loosening or widening of the drill hole. While triceps tendon autografts were most commonly used for primary LUCL reconstruction (89.2%), triceps and hamstring tendon autografts were used in revision procedures (35.1% and 32.4%, respectively). Fixation of the humerus was most commonly performed with tenodesis screws (83.8% in primary procedures and 73.0% in revision procedures), and fixation of the ulnaris was generally performed with biceps buttons in both primary procedures (75.7%) and revision procedures (51.4%). Out of 37 patients, eight complications (21.6%) were reported following revision surgery, including three cases of recurrent instability (8.1%). The median QuickDASH score was 42.5 (IQR, 25.4-80.2), and the median PREE score was 13.0 (IQR, 1.0-41.4).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Revision LUCL reconstructions remain challenging. The most common causes of failure are graft insufficiency or loosening, and humeral graft rupture, resulting in recurrent PLRI. Additionally, revision LUCL reconstruction is associated with moderate to poor postoperative outcome scores and a relatively high complication rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":50484,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","volume":"35 1","pages":"103"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical revision after previous failed lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) reconstruction and persisting posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) of the Elbow: a retrospective multicentric analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Sebastian Lappen, Sebastian Siebenlist, Christian Schoch, Hans-Jörg Bülow, Boris Hollinger, Klaus Burkhart J, Stephanie Geyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00590-025-04201-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to identify causes for recurrent PLRI, compare surgical treatment options, and analyze functional outcomes following revision LUCL reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective multicentric case analysis was conducted, including patients who underwent revision LUCL surgery due to recurrent PLRI. Demographic data, surgical techniques (for primary and revision LUCL reconstruction) and postoperative rehabilitation protocols were analyzed, and causes of failure documented. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 37 patients with a mean age of 44.3 years (± 12.3) and a median follow-up of 40.9 months (interquartile range, 20.5-77.0) with revision LUCL surgery were included. Recurrent instability was mainly attributed to graft insufficiency or loosening (59.5%) and rupture of the humeral graft (37.8%). Failure of humeral fixation occurred in 48.7% of cases, often due to loosening or widening of the drill hole. While triceps tendon autografts were most commonly used for primary LUCL reconstruction (89.2%), triceps and hamstring tendon autografts were used in revision procedures (35.1% and 32.4%, respectively). Fixation of the humerus was most commonly performed with tenodesis screws (83.8% in primary procedures and 73.0% in revision procedures), and fixation of the ulnaris was generally performed with biceps buttons in both primary procedures (75.7%) and revision procedures (51.4%). Out of 37 patients, eight complications (21.6%) were reported following revision surgery, including three cases of recurrent instability (8.1%). The median QuickDASH score was 42.5 (IQR, 25.4-80.2), and the median PREE score was 13.0 (IQR, 1.0-41.4).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Revision LUCL reconstructions remain challenging. The most common causes of failure are graft insufficiency or loosening, and humeral graft rupture, resulting in recurrent PLRI. Additionally, revision LUCL reconstruction is associated with moderate to poor postoperative outcome scores and a relatively high complication rate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-025-04201-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-025-04201-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是确定复发性PLRI的原因,比较手术治疗方案,并分析改进型LUCL重建后的功能结果。方法:回顾性多中心病例分析,包括因复发性PLRI而行改进型LUCL手术的患者。分析了人口统计数据、手术技术(用于初级和改版LUCL重建)和术后康复方案,并记录了失败的原因。功能结果通过患者评定肘部评估(PREE)和手臂、肩膀和手的快速残疾(QuickDASH)问卷进行评估。结果:共纳入37例患者,平均年龄44.3岁(±12.3岁),中位随访40.9个月(四分位间距为20.5-77.0),并行翻修性LUCL手术。复发性不稳定主要是由于移植物功能不全或松动(59.5%)和肱骨移植物破裂(37.8%)。48.7%的病例发生肱骨固定失败,通常是由于钻孔松动或扩大。自体肱三头肌腱移植最常用于原发性LUCL重建(89.2%),而自体肱三头肌腱和腘绳肌腱移植在翻修手术中使用(分别为35.1%和32.4%)。肱骨的固定最常使用肌腱固定螺钉(83.8%为初级手术,73.0%为翻修手术),尺骨的固定通常使用肱二头肌按钮(75.7%)和翻修手术(51.4%)。37例患者中,翻修手术后出现8例并发症(21.6%),包括3例复发性不稳定(8.1%)。QuickDASH评分中位数为42.5 (IQR, 25.4-80.2), PREE评分中位数为13.0 (IQR, 1.0-41.4)。结论:改版LUCL重建仍然具有挑战性。最常见的失败原因是移植物功能不全或松动,以及肱骨移植物破裂,导致复发性PLRI。此外,翻修后的LUCL重建与中等至较差的术后预后评分和相对较高的并发症发生率相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surgical revision after previous failed lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) reconstruction and persisting posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) of the Elbow: a retrospective multicentric analysis.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify causes for recurrent PLRI, compare surgical treatment options, and analyze functional outcomes following revision LUCL reconstruction.

Methods: A retrospective multicentric case analysis was conducted, including patients who underwent revision LUCL surgery due to recurrent PLRI. Demographic data, surgical techniques (for primary and revision LUCL reconstruction) and postoperative rehabilitation protocols were analyzed, and causes of failure documented. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaires.

Results: A total of 37 patients with a mean age of 44.3 years (± 12.3) and a median follow-up of 40.9 months (interquartile range, 20.5-77.0) with revision LUCL surgery were included. Recurrent instability was mainly attributed to graft insufficiency or loosening (59.5%) and rupture of the humeral graft (37.8%). Failure of humeral fixation occurred in 48.7% of cases, often due to loosening or widening of the drill hole. While triceps tendon autografts were most commonly used for primary LUCL reconstruction (89.2%), triceps and hamstring tendon autografts were used in revision procedures (35.1% and 32.4%, respectively). Fixation of the humerus was most commonly performed with tenodesis screws (83.8% in primary procedures and 73.0% in revision procedures), and fixation of the ulnaris was generally performed with biceps buttons in both primary procedures (75.7%) and revision procedures (51.4%). Out of 37 patients, eight complications (21.6%) were reported following revision surgery, including three cases of recurrent instability (8.1%). The median QuickDASH score was 42.5 (IQR, 25.4-80.2), and the median PREE score was 13.0 (IQR, 1.0-41.4).

Conclusion: Revision LUCL reconstructions remain challenging. The most common causes of failure are graft insufficiency or loosening, and humeral graft rupture, resulting in recurrent PLRI. Additionally, revision LUCL reconstruction is associated with moderate to poor postoperative outcome scores and a relatively high complication rate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
265
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (EJOST) aims to publish high quality Orthopedic scientific work. The objective of our journal is to disseminate meaningful, impactful, clinically relevant work from each and every region of the world, that has the potential to change and or inform clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信