Surgical Outcomes of Lateral Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction Versus Repair for Posterolateral Rotatory Instability of the Elbow: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: The aim of surgical treatment for posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) of the elbow is to restore the integrity of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL), with ligamentous reconstruction being the preferred option for recurrent symptomatic PLRI. However, there is no clinical evidence demonstrating the superiority of reconstruction versus repair. Treatment options currently depend on the cause of the LUCL injury and surgeon preference.

Purpose: To review studies comparing surgical outcomes of LUCL reconstruction versus repair in treating PLRI of the elbow.

Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods: This review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Medline (via EBSCO), ProQuest, and ScienceDirect databases using the following keywords: "(lateral ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction)" OR "(lateral ulnar collateral ligament repair)" AND "(outcome)." Excluded were studies in languages other than English, those that included terrible triad injury, transolecranon fracture, radial head arthroplasty involvement, associated procedures, animal studies, and biomechanical studies. A total of 193 studies were identified after the initial search. The primary outcome measure was the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, which was compared between studies using a random-effects model.

Results: Overall, 20 studies (N = 646 patients) were included, with 445 of 646 patients (68.8%) in the LUCL reconstruction group and 201 of 646 patients (31.1%) in the LUCL repair group. All injuries in the included studies were traumatic. The LUCL reconstruction group had a longer follow-up period compared with the LUCL repair group (72.05 ± 43.51 vs 36.86 ± 21.19 months, respectively). The postoperative range of motion arc was similar in both the repair and reconstruction groups (135.02°± 15.33° vs 133.60°± 8.84°, respectively). Both LUCL repair and LUCL reconstruction resulted in good to excellent outcomes on patient-reported outcome measures; however, a superior rate of return to activity and a lower complication rate were found after LUCL reconstruction versus LUCL repair (8.3% vs 14.9%). Ulnar nerve event (2.3%) was the most common complication in both groups.

Conclusion: Findings indicated that LUCL reconstruction had a superior rate of return to activity and a lower complication rate compared with LUCL repair.