The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:1293-1296.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02462
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 Shoulder/Elbow Test 11: Summer 2005
CME 2: April, May, June 2005
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ring, D.
Right arrow Articles by Jupiter, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ring, D.
Right arrow Articles by Jupiter, J. B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Hinged Elbow External Fixation for Severe Elbow Contracture

David Ring, MD1, Robert N. Hotchkiss, MD2, Daniel Guss, BA1 and Jesse B. Jupiter, MD1

1 Massachusetts General Hospital, ACC 525, 15 Parkman Street, Boston, MA 02114. E-mail address for D. Ring: dring{at}partners.org
2 The Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021

Investigation performed at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and The Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY

Background: When it was first introduced, it was hoped that hinged external fixation with a built-in gear mechanism for applying passive motion and static progressive stretch by turning a dial would improve the arc of ulnohumeral motion, by gradually stretching contracted muscles, after open release of a severe elbow contracture.

Methods: Forty-two patients were evaluated at an average of thirty-nine months after operative release of a severe posttraumatic elbow contracture (defined as ≤40° of motion). Twenty-three patients had been treated, during the early part of the study, with a hinged external fixator that incorporated a worm gear to apply static progressive stretch postoperatively. These patients were compared with nineteen patients who had been treated without hinged external fixation during the later part of the study, when the hinge was used less frequently. The operative techniques did not otherwise change during the study period. Demographic and injury characteristics as well as associated problems were comparable between the two groups.

Results: The average gain in the range of motion after the index procedure was 89° in the patients treated with a hinge and 78° in those treated without a hinge, an insignificant difference with the numbers available (p = 0.175). Complications associated with use of the hinge included five pin-track infections, one case of pin-track osteomyelitis, one ulnar fracture through a pin site, two broken Schanz screws, and two cases of irritation of the ulnar nerve.

Conclusions: Open release of a severe elbow contracture results in a substantial gain in motion, with or without hinged elbow fixation. The slightly greater improvement in motion provided by the hinge does not justify the associated increase in risk, expense, and complications.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?