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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Erickson, Brandon J., Bach, Bernard R., Verma, Nikhil N., Bush-Joseph, Charles A., Romeo, Anthony A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2017
Materias:
72
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