Triceps on, alignment off? A comparison of total elbow arthroplasty component positioning with a triceps-on and a triceps-off approach.

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/11287/620825
Title:
Triceps on, alignment off? A comparison of total elbow arthroplasty component positioning with a triceps-on and a triceps-off approach.
Authors:
King, Andrew ( 0000-0002-8070-1311 ) ; Booker, Simon; Thomas, William J.; Smith, Christopher D.
Abstract:
Introduction This retrospective review investigates whether the triceps-on approach obtains alignment of total elbow arthroplasty implants equivalent to a triceps-off approach. Methods The last 30 consecutive total elbow arthroplasties performed by the senior author were reviewed to identify the approach used and pathology treated. Initially, a triceps split and reflection approach was used, then a triceps-preserving approach. Two blinded reviewers measured the component alignment in standardised radiographs. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to investigate inter/intra-observer and error. The two groups were compared using an unpaired Student t-test. Results There were 13 elbows in the triceps-off group and 17 in the triceps-on group. Pearson's coefficient was 0.75 for interobserver error, 0.89 for intra-observer error. There was no statistical difference between the achieved alignment. All ulna components were flexed with a mean angle deviation of 4.5 degrees in the triceps-off group and 5.7 degrees in the triceps on. Two (15%) ulna components in the triceps-off group were placed in over 5 degrees of flexion, compared with seven (44%) in the triceps-on group. Conclusion These results demonstrate no statistical difference in the achieved alignment between the two groups. Surgeons should beware of the tendency to place the ulna component in a flexed position, especially in the triceps-on approach.
Citation:
Triceps on, alignment off? A comparison of total elbow arthroplasty component positioning with a triceps-on and a triceps-off approach. 2018:1-6 Ann R Coll Surg Engl
Publisher:
Royal College of Surgeons
Journal:
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
Issue Date:
16-Aug-2018
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/11287/620825
DOI:
10.1308/rcsann.2018.0117
PubMed ID:
30112954
Additional Links:
http://publishing.rcseng.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1308/rcsann.2018.0117?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed
Type:
Journal Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
1478-7083
Appears in Collections:
General Trauma & Orthopaedics; 2018 RD&E publications

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorKing, Andrewen
dc.contributor.authorBooker, Simonen
dc.contributor.authorThomas, William J.en
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Christopher D.en
dc.date.accessioned2018-10-02T11:38:50Z-
dc.date.available2018-10-02T11:38:50Z-
dc.date.issued2018-08-16-
dc.identifier.citationTriceps on, alignment off? A comparison of total elbow arthroplasty component positioning with a triceps-on and a triceps-off approach. 2018:1-6 Ann R Coll Surg Englen
dc.identifier.issn1478-7083-
dc.identifier.pmid30112954-
dc.identifier.doi10.1308/rcsann.2018.0117-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11287/620825-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction This retrospective review investigates whether the triceps-on approach obtains alignment of total elbow arthroplasty implants equivalent to a triceps-off approach. Methods The last 30 consecutive total elbow arthroplasties performed by the senior author were reviewed to identify the approach used and pathology treated. Initially, a triceps split and reflection approach was used, then a triceps-preserving approach. Two blinded reviewers measured the component alignment in standardised radiographs. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to investigate inter/intra-observer and error. The two groups were compared using an unpaired Student t-test. Results There were 13 elbows in the triceps-off group and 17 in the triceps-on group. Pearson's coefficient was 0.75 for interobserver error, 0.89 for intra-observer error. There was no statistical difference between the achieved alignment. All ulna components were flexed with a mean angle deviation of 4.5 degrees in the triceps-off group and 5.7 degrees in the triceps on. Two (15%) ulna components in the triceps-off group were placed in over 5 degrees of flexion, compared with seven (44%) in the triceps-on group. Conclusion These results demonstrate no statistical difference in the achieved alignment between the two groups. Surgeons should beware of the tendency to place the ulna component in a flexed position, especially in the triceps-on approach.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherRoyal College of Surgeonsen
dc.relation.urlhttp://publishing.rcseng.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1308/rcsann.2018.0117?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmeden
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of Englanden
dc.subjectWessex Classification Subject Headings::Orthopaedicsen
dc.titleTriceps on, alignment off? A comparison of total elbow arthroplasty component positioning with a triceps-on and a triceps-off approach.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journalAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of Englanden
dc.type.versionIn press (epub ahead of print)en

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in RD&E Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.