Cargando…
Treatment of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Tears of the Elbow: Is Repair a Viable Option?
BACKGROUND: Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears have become common, and UCL reconstruction (UCLR) is currently the preferred surgical treatment method for treating UCL tears. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to review the literature surrounding UCL repair and determine the viabili...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298464/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28203598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116682211 |
_version_ | 1782505872099901440 |
---|---|
author | Erickson, Brandon J. Bach, Bernard R. Verma, Nikhil N. Bush-Joseph, Charles A. Romeo, Anthony A. |
author_facet | Erickson, Brandon J. Bach, Bernard R. Verma, Nikhil N. Bush-Joseph, Charles A. Romeo, Anthony A. |
author_sort | Erickson, Brandon J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears have become common, and UCL reconstruction (UCLR) is currently the preferred surgical treatment method for treating UCL tears. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to review the literature surrounding UCL repair and determine the viability of new repair techniques for treatment of UCL tears. We hypothesized that UCL repair techniques will provide comparable results to UCLR for treatment of UCL tears. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed with PRISMA guidelines using 3 publicly available free databases. Biomechanical and clinical outcome investigations reporting on UCL repair with levels of evidence 1 through 4 were eligible for inclusion. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each study and parameter/variable analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 46 studies eligible, 4 studies (3 clinical and 1 biomechanical) were included. There were 92 patients (n = 92 elbows; 61 males [62.3%]; mean age, 21.9 ± 4.7 years) included in the clinical studies, with a mean follow-up of 49 ± 14.4 months. Eighty-six percent of repairs performed were on the dominant elbow, and 38% were in college athletes. Most UCL repairs (66.3%) were performed via suture anchors. After UCL repair, 87.0% of patients were able to return to sport. Overall, 94.9% of patients scored excellent/good on the Andrews-Carson score. Patients who were able to return to sport after UCL repair did so within 6 months after surgery. Biomechanically, when UCL repair was compared with the modified Jobe technique, the repair group showed significantly less gap formation than the reconstruction group. CONCLUSION: In patients for whom repair is properly indicated, UCL repair provides similar return-to-sport rates and clinical outcomes with shorter return-to-sport timing after repair compared with UCL reconstruction. Future outcome studies evaluating UCL repair with internal bracing are necessary before recommending this technique. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5298464 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-52984642017-02-15 Treatment of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Tears of the Elbow: Is Repair a Viable Option? Erickson, Brandon J. Bach, Bernard R. Verma, Nikhil N. Bush-Joseph, Charles A. Romeo, Anthony A. Orthop J Sports Med 72 BACKGROUND: Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears have become common, and UCL reconstruction (UCLR) is currently the preferred surgical treatment method for treating UCL tears. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to review the literature surrounding UCL repair and determine the viability of new repair techniques for treatment of UCL tears. We hypothesized that UCL repair techniques will provide comparable results to UCLR for treatment of UCL tears. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed with PRISMA guidelines using 3 publicly available free databases. Biomechanical and clinical outcome investigations reporting on UCL repair with levels of evidence 1 through 4 were eligible for inclusion. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each study and parameter/variable analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 46 studies eligible, 4 studies (3 clinical and 1 biomechanical) were included. There were 92 patients (n = 92 elbows; 61 males [62.3%]; mean age, 21.9 ± 4.7 years) included in the clinical studies, with a mean follow-up of 49 ± 14.4 months. Eighty-six percent of repairs performed were on the dominant elbow, and 38% were in college athletes. Most UCL repairs (66.3%) were performed via suture anchors. After UCL repair, 87.0% of patients were able to return to sport. Overall, 94.9% of patients scored excellent/good on the Andrews-Carson score. Patients who were able to return to sport after UCL repair did so within 6 months after surgery. Biomechanically, when UCL repair was compared with the modified Jobe technique, the repair group showed significantly less gap formation than the reconstruction group. CONCLUSION: In patients for whom repair is properly indicated, UCL repair provides similar return-to-sport rates and clinical outcomes with shorter return-to-sport timing after repair compared with UCL reconstruction. Future outcome studies evaluating UCL repair with internal bracing are necessary before recommending this technique. SAGE Publications 2017-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5298464/ /pubmed/28203598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116682211 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | 72 Erickson, Brandon J. Bach, Bernard R. Verma, Nikhil N. Bush-Joseph, Charles A. Romeo, Anthony A. Treatment of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Tears of the Elbow: Is Repair a Viable Option? |
title | Treatment of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Tears of the Elbow: Is Repair a Viable Option? |
title_full | Treatment of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Tears of the Elbow: Is Repair a Viable Option? |
title_fullStr | Treatment of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Tears of the Elbow: Is Repair a Viable Option? |
title_full_unstemmed | Treatment of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Tears of the Elbow: Is Repair a Viable Option? |
title_short | Treatment of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Tears of the Elbow: Is Repair a Viable Option? |
title_sort | treatment of ulnar collateral ligament tears of the elbow: is repair a viable option? |
topic | 72 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298464/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28203598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116682211 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ericksonbrandonj treatmentofulnarcollateralligamenttearsoftheelbowisrepairaviableoption AT bachbernardr treatmentofulnarcollateralligamenttearsoftheelbowisrepairaviableoption AT vermanikhiln treatmentofulnarcollateralligamenttearsoftheelbowisrepairaviableoption AT bushjosephcharlesa treatmentofulnarcollateralligamenttearsoftheelbowisrepairaviableoption AT romeoanthonya treatmentofulnarcollateralligamenttearsoftheelbowisrepairaviableoption |