Ciccotti Michael G
The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University.
Arthroscopy. 2025 Jul;41(7):2305-2308. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2025.01.017. Epub 2025 Jan 24.
Current surgical treatment options for ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injury of the elbow include both reconstruction and repair. A growing amount of research has evaluated the outcomes of these various techniques in a variety of study designs. Large national database assessment indicates that overall failure rates are low and complication rates are similar between UCL reconstruction and UCL repair techniques. In addition, although the incidence of revision UCL surgery is low, UCL repair is associated with a significantly greater risk of revision than UCL reconstruction. This information is important in counseling our patients and urges us to perform higher-level, comparative research of these 2 surgical techniques in order to more precisely sculpt the optimal treatment algorithm for UCL injury. In my experience, preoperative advanced imaging including magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography, and stress ultrasound are invaluable in determining the location and degree of UCL injury and, equally importantly, the status of the remaining ligament. These are key factors in deciding whether a particular patient is appropriate for UCL reconstruction or repair according to the indications defined by Dugas (with suture tape augmentation): "complete or partial avulsion of the UCL from either the sublime tubercle or medial epicondyle, without evidence of poor tissue quality of the ligament."
目前,针对肘部尺侧副韧带(UCL)损伤的手术治疗选择包括重建和修复。越来越多的研究在各种研究设计中评估了这些不同技术的疗效。大型国家数据库评估表明,总体失败率较低,UCL重建和UCL修复技术的并发症发生率相似。此外,尽管UCL翻修手术的发生率较低,但与UCL重建相比,UCL修复的翻修风险显著更高。这些信息对于向我们的患者提供咨询非常重要,并促使我们对这两种手术技术进行更高级别的比较研究,以便更精确地制定UCL损伤的最佳治疗方案。以我的经验,术前先进的影像学检查,包括磁共振成像、磁共振关节造影和应力超声,对于确定UCL损伤的位置和程度,以及同样重要的是,剩余韧带的状况非常有价值。根据杜加斯(采用缝线带增强)定义的指征,这些是决定特定患者是否适合进行UCL重建或修复的关键因素:“UCL从小结节或内上髁完全或部分撕脱,且无韧带组织质量差的证据”。