Gjw. King et al., MOTION AND LAXITY OF THE CAPITELLOCONDYLAR TOTAL ELBOW PROSTHESIS, Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 76A(7), 1994, pp. 1000-1008
The motion and laxity of the capitellocondylar unconstrained total elb
ow prosthesis were assessed, with use of an electromagnetic tracking d
evice and simulated muscle-loading, after implantation in seventeen ca
daveric elbows. The axis of motion of the elbows with the capitellocon
dylar implants averaged 2.1 +/- 2.3 degrees more varus angulation than
that of the intact elbows. This difference may be attributed to the d
esign of the implant, as the 5-degree-valgus humeral component used in
this study has a smaller valgus inclination than the articular surfac
e of the distal aspect of the humerus. Although the maximum valgus-var
us laxity of the capitellocondylar elbow prostheses was, on the averag
e, 4.3 +/- 2.4 degrees greater than normal (with simulated muscle-load
ing), the data must be interpreted in light of the fact that this in v
itro study did not allow for soft-tissue healing. The prosthetic compo
nents tracked well, and there were no dislocations or malarticulations
provided that appropriate soft-tissue tensioning and positioning of t
he components had been achieved at the time of implantation. Sectionin
g of either the medial or the lateral collateral ligament resulted in
gross instability of the joint after capitellocondylar arthroplasty. T
he ulnar attachment of the medial collateral ligament was found to be
vulnerable to injury during the positioning of the ulnar component of
this implant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The capitellocondylar unconstrained
total elbow prosthesis can restore acceptable patterns of motion and s
tability to the elbow if there is adequate positioning of the componen
ts and appropriate soft-tissue balance. Both collateral ligaments were
shown to be essential stabilizers of this implant, and their integrit
y is a prerequisite for stable function. The ulnar insertion of the an
terior bundle of the medial collateral ligament is vulnerable to damag
e during placement of the relatively broad ulnar component, and such a
n injury may be one reason for instability of the joint after replacem
ent of the elbow with this device. The use of this implant in patients
who have small-caliber bones must be undertaken with caution, as inad
vertent injury to the medial collateral ligament is difficult to avoid
.