Reconstruction of the Distal Oblique Bundle for DRUJ Instability

Background Treatment algorithm for disruption of the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) from the ulnar fovea includes direct TFCC repair, tendon reconstruction of the radioulnar ligaments, or a salvage procedure in cases with painful distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) degeneration. Case Description We describe our surgical technique for reconstruction of the distal oblique bundle (DOB), to attain DRUJ stability in a young man, after failed attempts of direct TFCC reinsertion and radioulnar ligament reconstruction with the Adams procedure. Literature Review Reconstruction of the central band of the interosseous membrane is well recognized for Essex-Lopresti injuries that demonstrate longitudinal forearm instability. The role for reconstruction/reinforcement of the DOB to restore DRUJ stability after TFCC injury has not gained the same recognition and needs further clarification. Clinical Relevance DOB reconstruction technique described is extra-articular and technically straightforward. We believe that the procedure could be considered for patients with an irreparable TFCC injury as a part of the treatment algorithm for younger patients, who otherwise would face a more extensive salvage procedure.

Acute Radial Head Resection for Fracture: are We Likely to Miss an Essex-Lopresti Injury?

Background. Given the current available evidence, surgical treatment of radial head fracture with acute resection is controversial. The aim of this study was to determine whether acute resection of the radial head for a radial head fracture leads to longitudinal forearm instability due to a missed Essex-Lopresti injury. Material and methods. A retrospective review was conducted of radial head resections performed for acute radial head fractures at two Level I trauma centers from 2000 to 2018. A total of 11 patients met inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was a missed Essex-Lopresti injury at time of final clinical follow-up. Long-term telephone follow-up was attempted for QuickDASH, pain scores, and satisfaction scores. Results. Of the 11 radial head fractures in this study, intraoperative radial pull tests were performed and normal in 6 patients. No patient was found to have a missed Essex-Lopresti injury at a mean of 36.2 months’ clinical follow-up after radial head resection. At a mean telephone follow-up of 12.6 years in available patients, mean QuickDASH was 3.4, mean satisfaction was 9.75 out of 10, and no further complication or reoperation was reported. Conclusion. Our findings challenge the dogma that the radial head cannot be safely excised in the setting of acute fracture, even with elbow instability and/or wrist pain, particularly when intraoperative longitudinal stability is assessed by a stress maneuver.

Contribution of a distal radioulnar joint stabilizer on forearm stability: A modeling study

Instability of the forearm is a complex problem that leads to pain and limited motions. Up to this time, no universal consensus has yet been reached as regards the optimal treatment for forearm instability. In some cases, conservative treatments are recommended for forearm instability injuries. However, quantitative studies on the conservative treatment of forearm instability are lacking. The present study developed a finite element model of the forearm to investigate the contribution of the distal radioulnar joint stabilizer on forearm stability. The stabilizer was designed to provide stability between the radius and ulna. The forearm model with and without the stabilizer was tested using the pure transverse separation and radial pull test for the different ligament sectioned models. The percentage contribution of the stabilizer and ligament structures resisting the load on the forearm was estimated. For the transverse stability of the forearm, the central band resisted approximately 50% of the total transverse load. In the longitudinal instability, the interosseous membrane resisted approximately 70% of the axial load. With the stabilizer, models showed that the stabilizer provided the transverse stability and resisted almost 1/4 of the total transverse load in the ligament sectioned models. The stabilizer provided transverse stability and reduced the loading on the ligaments. We suggested that a stabilizer can be applied in the conservative management of patients who do not have the gross longitudinal instability with the interosseous membrane and the triangular fibrocartilage complex disruption.

The role of the interosseous ligament in forearm rotation: A bio-mechanical study

Background: Management of longitudinal forearm instability remains challenging. Chronic forearm stability may be overcome by reconstruction of the interosseous ligament (IOL). Despite the bands of the IOL being inseparable, studies of the IOL have focused on the central band (CB), but have neglected the proximal (PB) and distal (DB) bands. The purpose of this study was to characterize the bio-mechanical properties of the IOL. Materials and Methods: Twelve frozen specimens from individuals of both sexes were bio-mechanically analyzed using a custom-designed jig operated at constant angular speed to simulate forearm rotation. Strain was measured during dynamic forearm simulation using a motion tracking system. Results: The average strain of the CB, PB, and DB during forearm simulation were 0.08 ± 0.04, 0.83 ± 0.47, and 0.65 ± 0.23 mm (p < 0.001). The IOL was generally shortest during maximal pronation and increased as the forearm was rotated to a neutral position. The strain of the CB remain constant during forearm rotation and was the lowest at full pronation to 20° pronation position. Throughout forearm rotation, the strain of the CB remained constant, whereas the strain of the PB and DB fluctuated. Conclusions: The PB, CB, and DB of the forearm IOL have different bio-mechanical properties. CB maintained a constant rotational strain throughout forearm rotation. Strain on the CB was significantly lower than strains on the PB and DB. By contrast, strains on the PB and DB varied, suggesting that their roles differ from those of the CB. When CB reconstruction is needed, graft should be tensioned at 20° forearm pronation to gain optimum tension.