MOTION AND LAXITY OF THE CAPITELLOCONDYLAR TOTAL ELBOW PROSTHESIS

Citation
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
Citations number
20
Categorie Soggetti
Orthopedics,Surgery
ISSN journal
00219355
Volume
76A
Issue
7
Year of publication
1994
Pages
1000 - 1008
Database
ISI
SICI code
0021-9355(1994)76A:7<1000:MALOTC>2.0.ZU;2-#
Abstract
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 .