4.3 Review

Clinical results of the excision of heterotopic bone around the elbow: a systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 716-722

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.11.020

Keywords

Heterotopic ossification; ectopic bone formation; elbow; HO excision; range of motion; trauma; brain injury; burn

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Heterotopic ossification (HO) of the elbow can occur following direct trauma, brain injury, or burns. Development of elbow HO is sporadic, making levels 1-3 clinical evidence difficult to establish. We systematically reviewed literature regarding management and outcomes of surgically treated elbow HO. Methods: A systematic review of the literature regarding elbow HO was performed to compare imaging modalities, surgical timing, surgical approaches, and methods of prophylaxis in outcomes of patients treated with excision. Results: Our systematic review included 24 level 3 or 4 studies investigating 384 post-trauma (158), brain injury (105), or burn (94) patients with elbows complicated by HO that were treated with surgical excision. Average patient age was 36.9 years and there was a 65/35 M/F ratio. For all etiologies, preoperatively elbow flexion/extension averaged 53/83; postoperatively elbow flexion/extension significantly improved to 22/123. Regardless of the etiology, surgical excision of elbow HO significantly improved functional range of motion. Neither total body surface area (TBSA) burned for burn patients or Garland classification for brain-injured patients correlated with outcome. Overall complication rate was 22.6% and included HO recurrence (11.9%), ulnar nerve injury, infection, and delayed wound healing. Conclusion: Surgical treatment of elbow HO leads to improved functional outcome, whether the etiology of bone formation was direct elbow trauma, brain injury, or thermal injury. (C) 2013 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available