Description of a new surgical approach for elbow arthroplasty: Selective Triceps-On Medial Paraolecranon (STOMP) approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Surgical approaches for total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) are broadly divided into two groups; "triceps-off" and "triceps-on" approaches. Traditional "triceps-off" approaches provide excellent visualization for TEA; however, they carry a risk of triceps failure and require triceps protecting rehabilitation protocols. Triceps-on approaches have the advantage of preservation of triceps function yet present technical challenges for access to and preparation of the bony surfaces of the proximal ulna and radius. We present here the operative technique, indications, and initial outcomes of a novel Selective Triceps-On Medial Paraolecranon (STOMP) approach for TEA, which allows both preservation of the triceps function and excellent exposure to the proximal ulna with minimal risk to the ulnar nerve. Methods: A two center, retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing primary TEA, hemiarthroplasty, or revision elbow arthroplasties using the STOMP approach in the practice of the senior authors between 2010 and 2020 were reviewed. Patient data, including admission demographics and diagnoses were collated. Outcome measures were collected from patient charts. Results: A total of 37 elbow arthroplasties in 35 patients were performed with the STOMP approach during the reviewed period, of which 27 patients (77%) were female. Thirty-two arthroplasties were primary cases (86%), and 5 (14%) were revision cases. The main indications leading to elbow arthroplasty was rheumatoid arthritis (n = 18, 49%) followed by primary or secondary elbow osteoarthritis (n = 9, 24%) and distal humeral fracture (n = 7, 19%). There were 7 postoperative complications (19%). Five patients (14%) developed elbow stiffness, one patient a postoperative olecranon fracture (n = 1, 3%) and one patient had an ulnar nerve injury with incomplete resolution but that did not warrant surgical treatment (n = 1, 3%). A reoperation was required in 3 patients (9%). Conclusion: The STOMP approach is a safe approach for elbow arthroplasty surgery. It does not detach the triceps and we believe it offers improved exposure and safety compared to other triceps-on techniques. Furthermore, this approach allows excellent surgical access to the coronoid, olecranon, and ulnar canal with low midterm complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".