Single- versus double-bundle suture button reconstruction of the forearm interosseous membrane for the chronic Essex-Lopresti lesion

  • Michael P. Gaspar
  • Kenneth A. Kearns
  • Randall W. Culp
  • A. Lee Osterman
  • Patrick M. Kane
Original Article • ELBOW - FRACTURES

Abstract

Purpose

Reconstruction of the ruptured interosseous membrane (IOM) is critical to restore forearm stability for the chronic Essex-Lopresti injury. Positive outcomes have been reported following IOM reconstruction with a single-bundle suture button (Mini-Tightrope) construct, although recent work suggests that double-bundle Mini-TightRope® IOM reconstruction is biomechanically superior. The purpose of this study was to determine whether double-bundle Mini-TightRope® reconstruction of the forearm IOM results in superior clinical outcomes to the single-bundle technique.

Methods

Five patients with chronic Essex-Lopresti injuries treated with double-bundle Mini-TightRope® IOM reconstruction were matched to five patients treated with single-bundle Mini-TightRope® reconstruction. Improvement in clinical examination measures and patient-reported outcomes was compared between the groups.

Results

Results were good to excellent in all 10 patients. At final follow-up, forearm rotation was significantly better in the single-bundle group, while maintenance of ulnar variance was better in the double-bundle group. No significant differences were noted between the two groups for any other numerical outcomes, and no complications occurred.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that while IOM reconstruction with a double-bundle Mini-TightRope® construct results in greater resistance to proximal migration of the radius in the intermediate term, there is a modest concomitant loss of forearm rotation when compared to single-bundle reconstruction.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic Level IV.

Keywords

Forearm instability Longitudinal radioulnar dissociation Double-bundle interosseous membrane reconstruction Chronic Essex-Lopresti injury Mini-Tightrope suture button construct 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Human and animal rights

All human and animal studies have been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

The patients were treated according to standard of care and did not sign an informed consent for the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams JE, Culp RW, Osterman AL (2010) Interosseous membrane reconstruction for the Essex-Lopresti injury. J Hand Surg Am 35(1):129–136. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.10.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marcotte AL, Osterman AL (2007) Longitudinal radioulnar dissociation: identification and treatment of acute and chronic injuries. Hand Clin 23(2):195–208. doi: 10.1016/j.hcl.2007.01.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chloros GD, Wiesler ER, Stabile KJ, Papadonikolakis A, Ruch DS, Kuzma GR (2008) Reconstruction of Essex-Lopresti injury of the forearm: technical note. J Hand Surg Am 33(1):124–130. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.09.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stabile KJ, Pfaeffle J, Saris I, Li ZM, Tomaino MM (2005) Structural properties of reconstruction constructs for the interosseous ligament of the forearm. J Hand Surg Am. 30(2):312–318. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.11.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaspar MP, Kane PM, Pflug EM, Jacoby SM, Osterman AL, Culp RW (2016) Interosseous membrane reconstruction with a suture-button construct for treatment of chronic forearm instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25(9):1491–1500. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.04.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sellman DC, Seitz WH, Postak PD (1995) Reconstructive strategies for radioulnar dissociation: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Trauma 9:516–522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hackl M, Andermahr J, Staat M, Bremer I, Borggrefe J, Prescher A, Müller LP, Wegmann K (2017) Suture button reconstruction of the central band of the interosseous membrane in Essex-Lopresti lesions: a comparative biomechanical investigation. J Hand Surg Eur 42(4):370–376. doi: 10.1177/1753193416665943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landes G, Gaspar MP, Goljan P, Jacoby SM, Bachoura A, Culp RW (2016) Arthroscopic trapeziectomy with suture button suspensionplasty: a retrospective review of 153 cases. Hand (NY) 11(2):232–237. doi: 10.1177/1558944715616955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drake ML, Farber GL, White KL, Parks BG, Segalman KA (2010) Restoration of longitudinal forearm stability using a suture button construct. J Hand Surg Am 35(12):1981–1985. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.09.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kam CC, Jones CM, Fennema JL, Latta LL, Ouellette EA, Evans PJ (2010) Suture-button construct for interosseous ligament reconstruction in longitudinal radioulnar dissociations: a biomechanical study. J Hand Surg Am 35(10):1626–1632. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.07.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philadelphia Hand to Shoulder Center, Department of Orthopedic SurgeryThomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Darden School of BusinessUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations