Medial elbow approaches for coronoid fractures: risk to the ulnar nerve

Q2 Medicine JSES International Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jseint.2024.09.001
Olawale A. Sogbein MD, MSc, FRCSC , Shav Rupasinghe MBChB, FRACS , Yibo Li MD, FRCSC , Yousif Atwan MD, MSc, FRCSC , Armin Badre MD, MSc, FRCSC , Thomas Goetz MD, FRCSC , Graham J.W. King MD, MSc, FRCSC
{"title":"Medial elbow approaches for coronoid fractures: risk to the ulnar nerve","authors":"Olawale A. Sogbein MD, MSc, FRCSC ,&nbsp;Shav Rupasinghe MBChB, FRACS ,&nbsp;Yibo Li MD, FRCSC ,&nbsp;Yousif Atwan MD, MSc, FRCSC ,&nbsp;Armin Badre MD, MSc, FRCSC ,&nbsp;Thomas Goetz MD, FRCSC ,&nbsp;Graham J.W. King MD, MSc, FRCSC","doi":"10.1016/j.jseint.2024.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Coronoid fractures often require open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) to restore elbow stability. The flexor pronator split, flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) split, and Taylor and Scham (T&amp;S) approaches are frequently used medial approaches to access the coronoid. The ulnar nerve can be released or transposed when performing these exposures. The optimal medial surgical approach and management of the ulnar nerve has not been clearly defined. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative ulnar nerve complications in coronoid fractures undergoing ORIF following a medial surgical approach and ulnar nerve release or transposition.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective review of 91 patients with coronoid fractures treated with ORIF using a medial approach from 2004 to 2022 was performed at three academic medical centers. Patients ≥ 18 years of age who sustained coronoid fractures with or without associated injuries were included. Patient charts and perioperative imaging were reviewed. Patient demographics, fracture classification, associated injuries, surgical approaches, ulnar nerve management, and postoperative complications were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were signs and symptoms of postoperative ulnar nerve neuropathy.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The mean age of the cohort was 45 ± 16 years, 71% were males, with a mean length of follow-up of 16 ± 22 months. Of the 91 coronoid fractures, 69 were anteromedials, eight were tips, and 14 were basal types. The incidence of preoperative ulnar neuropathy was 5% (n = 5). The incidence of postoperative ulnar neuropathy was 33% (n = 30) of which 55% (n = 16) completely resolved by final follow-up. The rate of postoperative ulnar neuropathy was not significantly different between in situ release 30% (n = 9) or transposition of the ulnar nerve 34% (n = 20), (<em>P</em> = .64). There was a significantly higher rate of postoperative resolution with transposition (70%) versus in situ release (22%), (<em>P</em> = .045). The rate of postoperative ulnar neuropathy was not significantly different between the FCU, T&amp;S, or flexor pronator split approaches, (<em>P</em> = .331). Finally, the rate of neuropathy resolution was not significantly different between medial approaches (<em>P</em> = .46).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative ulnar nerve complications with ulnar nerve transposition or in situ release following coronoid fixation. However, transposing the nerve resulted in a higher rate of neuropathy resolution. While the incidence of postoperative ulnar nerve dysfunction is high following coronoid fixation when using a medial surgical approach, it was similar with the FCU, T&amp;S, and flexor pronator split approaches. Larger cohorts and randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34444,"journal":{"name":"JSES International","volume":"9 1","pages":"Pages 250-254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11784492/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSES International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638324003980","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Coronoid fractures often require open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) to restore elbow stability. The flexor pronator split, flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) split, and Taylor and Scham (T&S) approaches are frequently used medial approaches to access the coronoid. The ulnar nerve can be released or transposed when performing these exposures. The optimal medial surgical approach and management of the ulnar nerve has not been clearly defined. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative ulnar nerve complications in coronoid fractures undergoing ORIF following a medial surgical approach and ulnar nerve release or transposition.

Methods

A retrospective review of 91 patients with coronoid fractures treated with ORIF using a medial approach from 2004 to 2022 was performed at three academic medical centers. Patients ≥ 18 years of age who sustained coronoid fractures with or without associated injuries were included. Patient charts and perioperative imaging were reviewed. Patient demographics, fracture classification, associated injuries, surgical approaches, ulnar nerve management, and postoperative complications were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were signs and symptoms of postoperative ulnar nerve neuropathy.

Results

The mean age of the cohort was 45 ± 16 years, 71% were males, with a mean length of follow-up of 16 ± 22 months. Of the 91 coronoid fractures, 69 were anteromedials, eight were tips, and 14 were basal types. The incidence of preoperative ulnar neuropathy was 5% (n = 5). The incidence of postoperative ulnar neuropathy was 33% (n = 30) of which 55% (n = 16) completely resolved by final follow-up. The rate of postoperative ulnar neuropathy was not significantly different between in situ release 30% (n = 9) or transposition of the ulnar nerve 34% (n = 20), (P = .64). There was a significantly higher rate of postoperative resolution with transposition (70%) versus in situ release (22%), (P = .045). The rate of postoperative ulnar neuropathy was not significantly different between the FCU, T&S, or flexor pronator split approaches, (P = .331). Finally, the rate of neuropathy resolution was not significantly different between medial approaches (P = .46).

Conclusion

There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative ulnar nerve complications with ulnar nerve transposition or in situ release following coronoid fixation. However, transposing the nerve resulted in a higher rate of neuropathy resolution. While the incidence of postoperative ulnar nerve dysfunction is high following coronoid fixation when using a medial surgical approach, it was similar with the FCU, T&S, and flexor pronator split approaches. Larger cohorts and randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JSES International
JSES International Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
174
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Denervation procedure of the lateral epicondyle for refractory lateral epicondylitis Preoperative imaging predicts coracoid graft size and restoration of the glenoid track in Latarjet procedures Role of three-dimensional computed tomography with humeral subtraction in assessing anteromedial facet coronoid fractures Medial elbow approaches for coronoid fractures: risk to the ulnar nerve Minimally invasive needle tenotomy vs. platelet rich plasma injection in the treatment of chronic elbow epicondylitis
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1