JSES - 2026-07-15 - Journal Article
Triceps-sparing approach results in better elbow function compared to triceps-detaching approach in total elbow arthroplasty: A multicenter prospective cohort study.
Meijering D, Boerboom AL, Gerritsma CLE, The B, van den Bekerom MPJ, van der Pluijm M, Penning L, van der Windt A, Vegter RJK, Stevens M, Eygendaal D
Topics
Key Takeaway
Triceps-sparing TEA yields a mean fixed flexion deformity of 12° versus 26° with triceps-detaching approach at 12 months (p<0.01), with no difference in patient-reported outcomes or component positioning.
Summary Depth
Choose how much analysis to show on this article page.
Summary
This multicenter prospective non-randomized cohort study compared triceps-sparing versus triceps-detaching approaches in primary TEA across 110 patients, with 93 available at 12-month follow-up. The triceps-sparing group demonstrated significantly better fixed flexion deformity (12° vs 26°, p<0.01) and superior ROM, while PROM scores and radiographic component positioning were equivalent between groups. Major surgery-related complication rates reached 44% in both cohorts, with infection, ulnar nerve dysfunction, proximal ulna fractures, and triceps insufficiency as the most common events.
Key Limitation
Non-randomized allocation with unequal sex distribution between cohorts introduces selection bias that multilevel modelling may not fully correct, limiting causal inference.
Original Abstract
BACKGROUND
New surgical approaches have been developed to optimize functional outcomes after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Historically, the triceps-detaching approach was predominantly used, involving partial release of the triceps tendon to improve surgical exposure, at the cost of a higher risk of postoperative extensor weakness. More recently, there has been a shift toward triceps-sparing techniques, in which the triceps tendon is preserved at the cost of limited articular visibility, possibly risking component malalignment. There is no consensus on the best surgical approach and prospective studies are lacking. This study aims to investigate the functional outcomes, prosthetic component positioning, and complication rates after a triceps-sparing and a triceps-detaching approach in TEA.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
A multicenter prospective comparative non-randomized cohort study was conducted. All patients with an indication for primary TEA were enrolled in either a triceps-sparing or a triceps-detaching cohort. Primary outcome measure was elbow dysfunction, specified as fixed flexion deformity (FFD). Secondary outcome parameters were objectively measured physical functioning (including triceps force), self-reported physical functioning, prosthetic component positioning in standard radiographs, and complications. Data will be analyzed using multilevel modelling.
RESULTS
A total of 55 patients were included in each cohort; 46 patients were available for 12 months follow-up in the triceps-sparing cohort and 47 patients in the triceps-detaching cohort. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups, except for sex. Mean FFD at 12 months was 12° in the triceps-sparing cohort and 26° in the triceps-detaching cohort (p<0.01). Self-reported outcomes and prosthetic component positioning on radiographs did not differ significantly. Major surgery-related complication rates up to 44% were reported, without significant differences between groups. Infection, ulnar nerve dysfunction, fractures of the proximal ulna, and triceps insufficiency were most frequently reported.
CONCLUSION
The triceps-sparing approach results in significant and clinically relevant better FFD and range of motion (ROM) than the triceps-detaching approach. Patient-reported outcomes and prosthetic component positioning on radiographs are similar and reported complication rates are high but comparable between approaches.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The trial has been registered in the Dutch Trial Register: NTR NL8488.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level II; Prospective Cohort Design; Treatment Study.